state of georgia employee satisfaction research …...georgia state university public performance...

Georgia State University Public Performance and Management Group

1 Draft Results from DECAL 2016 Employee Satisfaction Survey 9/2016

State of Georgia Employee Satisfaction Research Report

Prepared for

Georgia Department of Early

Care and Learning

Sept 2016

Final Report

Public Performance &

Management Group

P.O. Box 3992

Atlanta, GA 30302-3992

(404) 413-0173



Contents Employee Perceptions of DECAL and Direct Supervisor ........................................................................... 4

DECAL .................................................................................................................................................... 4

Direct Supervisor ................................................................................................................................... 4

Agency Strengths .................................................................................................................................. 7

In House Training ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Satisfaction with Finance .......................................................................................................................... 9

Satisfaction with Human Resources ......................................................................................................... 9

Satisfaction with IT Services .................................................................................................................... 10

Employee Perceptions of Communications ............................................................................................ 12

Open Ended Questions for 2016 ............................................................................................................. 13

Analysis of Employee Subgroups ............................................................................................................ 15

Major Conclusions................................................................................................................................... 25

2016 DECAL Employee Survey ................................................................................................................ 28

Public Performance and Management Group Project Staff ................................................................... 35

The Public Performance and Management Group ................................................................................. 36



Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning Employee Satisfaction Survey

For the past ten years, the Public Performance and Management Group at Georgia State University has

conducted customer and employee surveys designed to help state agencies, programs, and institutions

track and improve customer and employee satisfaction by better managing service quality for customers

and the quality of the workplace for employees. Customer satisfaction is largely determined by

customers’ perception of service quality. Employee satisfaction is largely determined by employees’

perception of the quality of the workplace. Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning (DECAL) can

influence both customer and employee satisfaction by improving the quality of their experiences with

the agency. Employee satisfaction is often correlated with customer satisfaction. Thus, improving

employee satisfaction can contribute to improvements in customer satisfaction.

Working with the Public Performance and Management Group at Georgia State University, DECAL

conducted its annual employee and customer surveys. This report provides findings from the employee

survey conducted in May 2016.

A total of 327 employees were invited to complete an online survey; 262 or 80% completed the survey.

A profile of the respondents is shown in table 1. The response rate for DECAL was well above average,

with response rates for most online surveys averaging between 30-50%. It is worth noting that agencies

with high levels of de-centralization tended to have lower response rates, but that was not true for

DECAL.

Table 1: Profile of the Respondents

Department N % Executive Level N %

Audits and Compliance 20 7.6 Executive/Leadership Team 30 11.5%

Child Care Services 91 34.7 Non Executive 232 88.5%

Executive/Administration 23 8.8

Federal Programs 18 6.9 Supervisory N %

Instructional Support 16 6.1 Supervisor 52 19.8%

IT 13 5.0 Non Supervisor 210 80.2%

Legal 12 4.6

Pre-K 35 13.4 Years with DECAL N %

System Reform 34 13.0 Less than 1 45 17.2%

1 to 3 115 43.9%

Location N % 4 to 5 21 8.0%

Atlanta (HQ) 105 40.1% 6 to 10 35 13.4%

Field 157 59.9% 11 or More 46 17.6%



The survey was comprised of 24 questions, including 14 open ended questions to enable employees to

comment on various topics. Multi-part questions were measured on a 5 point scale anchored by

agree/disagree or satisfaction/dissatisfaction scales. The survey measured employee perceptions of

management, direct supervisors, the agency and the job. It also included questions about Human

Resource, Finance and Information Technology (IT) support. Finally, the survey asked questions about

communications. A copy of the survey is included in the appendix.

Employee Perceptions of DECAL and Direct Supervisor Employees were asked to use a 5 point scale to respond to 12 statements about DECAL and 10 items

related to their direct supervisor. The scale was anchored with the phrases Strongly Disagree (1) or

Strongly Agree (5) and the mid-point (3) of the scale was anchored with the phrase Somewhat Agree,

Somewhat Disagree. A response of 1, 2 or 3 is generally viewed as a cause for concern where a response

of 4 or 5 is a positive.

The basic findings are shown in Figure 1 and Table 2. Figure 1 graphically displays the distribution of

responses across the 5 point scale by item. Table 2 shows the same data plus the number of responses

per item and the item mean scores. Tables 3 and 4 further analyze the findings. Table 3 presents agency

strengths. Table 4 shows the findings over a four year period and is limited to items that were included

on the survey all four years. Both the figure and the tables display the findings related to DECAL first and

the findings related to DIRECT SUPERVISORS second.

DECAL

Employees rated statements about the agency’s climate, direction, conduciveness to productivity,

change and innovation and interdepartmental coordination, their pride in agency achievements, job

satisfaction and whether DECAL is a good place to work. The average percentage of agree or strongly

agree responses was 74. More than half of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with all but two

of the 12 items used to measure workplace quality. Only 45% of the respondents agreed or strongly

agreed with “Sufficient coordination and communication occurs between DECAL divisions”. Another

exception, as it was the last three years, was “All work units work together to ensure that DECAL

functions like one department”. Only 47% agreed or strongly agreed with this item. However, this is a

7% improvement over last year.

Direct Supervisor

Employees rated their direct supervisors’ leadership, accessibility, communications, respectfulness and

expectations. More than eighty percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with all 10 items

used to evaluate direct supervisors. The average percentage of agree or strongly agree responses was

87.



Figure 1: Employee Perceptions of DECAL and Direct Supervisor (%)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

DECAL

I feel that I am sufficiently recognized for my work.

Innovation and operational improvements are encouraged atDECAL.

I am proud of our achievements as an organization.

I recommend DECAL as a good place to work.

I am satisfied with my job.

All work units work together to ensure that DECAL functions likeone department.

The overall climate at DECAL is conducive to productivity.

Any stress associated with my job is manageable.

Change and innovation are encouraged at DECAL.

Sufficient coordination and communication occurs between DECALdivisions.

I expect to be employed by the agency 12 months from now.

Generally speaking, DECAL is heading in the right direction.

DIRECT SUPERVISOR

I have the tools needed to succeed in my job.

My direct supervisor’s expectations are clear.

My direct supervisor is accessible.

My direct supervisor is easy to talk with.

My direct supervisor keeps me updated about important mattersand changes.

My direct supervisor leads by example – actions match his/her words.

My direct supervisor has the skills and knowledge to successfullylead.

My direct supervisor supports my need to balance work and familyissues.

My direct supervisor seems to care about me as a person.

My direct supervisor provides the right type of supervision.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Agree, Somewhat Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree



Table 2: Employee Perceptions of DECAL and Direct Supervisor (%)

DECAL N Strongly Disagree Disagree

Somewhat Agree,

Somewhat Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree

Agree & Strongly

Agree Mean1

I feel that I am sufficiently recognized for my work. 262 3 6 28 49 14 63 3.6 Innovation and operational improvements are encouraged at DECAL. 258 2 5 26 49 19 67 3.8 I am proud of our achievements as an organization. 259 1 1 11 51 37 88 4.2 I recommend DECAL as a good place to work. 260 2 1 18 45 34 79 4.1

I am satisfied with my job. 258 1 3 17 52 26 78 4.0 All work units work together to ensure that DECAL functions like one department. 260 3 12 37 38 10 47 3.4 The overall climate at DECAL is conducive to productivity. 261 1 5 20 56 18 74 3.9 Any stress associated with my job is manageable. 259 1 5 21 56 18 73 3.8 Change and innovation are encouraged at DECAL. 257 2 7 22 52 18 70 3.8 Sufficient coordination and communication occurs between DECAL divisions. 259 3 15 38 34 10 45 3.4 I expect to be employed by the agency 12 months from now. 259 2 2 10 46 41 87 4.2 Generally speaking, DECAL is heading in the right direction. 256 1 0 15 50 34 84 4.2

DIRECT SUPERVISOR N Strongly Disagree Disagree

Somewhat Agree,

Somewhat Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree

Agree & Strongly

Agree Mean

I have the tools needed to succeed in my job. 261 2 2 14 55 27 82 4.0 My direct supervisor’s expectations are clear. 262 2 2 15 47 35 82 4.1

My direct supervisor is accessible. 262 1 1 7 48 43 91 4.3

My direct supervisor is easy to talk with. 262 2 1 9 40 48 88 4.3 My direct supervisor keeps me updated about important matters and changes. 262 1 2 10 50 38 87 4.2 My direct supervisor leads by example – actions match his/her words. 259 2 3 9 47 39 86 4.2 My direct supervisor has the skills and knowledge to successfully lead. 260 2 2 10 45 42 87 4.2 My direct supervisor supports my need to balance work and family issues. 263 1 1 5 40 53 93 4.4 My direct supervisor seems to care about me as a person. 260 2 0 10 39 50 89 4.4 My direct supervisor provides the right type of supervision. 262 2 2 10 45 41 86 4.2 1Using a 5 point scale where 1=Strongly Disagree, 3=Somewhat Agree, Somewhat Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree



Agency Strengths

Table 3 presents agency strengths that relate to employee perceptions of DECAL and direct supervisors

rank ordered by the percentage of respondents who agree or strongly agree with each statement.

Several agency strengths emerged as evidenced by seventy five percent or more of the respondents

agreeing or strongly agreeing with 5 of the 12 statements about DECAL. Three of these items, shown in

bold type, were agency strengths last year too.

Table 3: Agency Strengths Ranked Ordered by % Agree or Strongly Agree1

(> 75% Agree or Strongly Agree)

DECAL % Agree or Strongly Agree

I am proud of our achievements as an organization. 88%

I expect to be employed by the agency 12 months from now. 87%

Generally speaking, DECAL is heading in the right direction. 84%

I recommend DECAL as a good place to work. 79%

I am satisfied with my job. 78%

DIRECT SUPERVISOR

My direct supervisor supports my need to balance work and family issues. 93%

My direct supervisor is accessible. 91%

My direct supervisor seems to care about me as a person. 89%

My direct supervisor is easy to talk with. 88%

My direct supervisor keeps me updated about important matters and changes. 87%

My direct supervisor has the skills and knowledge to successfully lead. 87%

I have the tools needed to succeed in my job. 82%

My direct supervisor’s expectations are clear. 82%

My direct supervisor provides the right type of supervision. 86%

My direct supervisor leads by example – actions match his/her words. 86% 1Bold type indicates items that were also agency strengths last year.

All ten items used to measure employee perceptions of their direct supervisor emerged as agency

strengths. Nine of these items were agency strengths last year too. The tenth item, “My direct

supervisor provides the right type of supervision”, was rated agree or strongly agree by 74% of

respondents last year.

Table 4 is limited to survey items included on the survey over the prior four years. This table displays the

percent of “Agree & Strongly Agree” responses and the mean score for each item for each of the four

years. Nine of the 12 items used to rate DECAL this year are included. Based on the percent of “Agree &

Strongly Agree” responses, performance has improved on eight items and remained unchanged on the

ninth. The four items showing the largest year over year improvement are job satisfaction (up 8%) and

willingness to recommend DECAL as a good place to work, job stress is manageable and all work units

work together to ensure that DECAL functions like one department. The “Agree & Strongly Agree”

responses for these last three items increased by 7 percent.



Table 4 includes seven items used to measure direct supervisors. Based on the percent of “Agree &

Strongly Agree” responses, performance has improved on all seven items. The largest year over year

improvement related to providing the right kind of supervision, up 12%, and leading by example, up

11%.

Table 4: Year over Year Comparison of Employee Perceptions of DECAL and Their Direct Supervisor

NOTE: Only questions that were asked in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 are shown in this table1

% Agree & Strongly Agree Mean2

DECAL 2013 2014 2015 2016 2013 2014 2015 2016

I am proud of our achievements as an organization. 84 85 88 88 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2


82 83 85 87 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2


73 76 78 84 3.9 4 4 4.2

I recommend DECAL as a good place to work. 68 68 72 79 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.1

I am satisfied with my job. 62 62 70 78 3.7 3.7 3.8 4.0


63 61 71 74 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.9

Any stress associated with my job is manageable. 55 54 66 73 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.8

Change and innovation are encouraged at DECAL. 61 63 65 70 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.8

All work units work together to ensure that DECAL functions like one department.

40 36 40 47 3.2 3.1 3.3 3.4

DIRECT SUPERVISOR 2013 2014 2015 2016 2013 2014 2015 2016

My direct supervisor supports my need to balance work and family issues.

85 89 84 93 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.4

My direct supervisor keeps me updated about important matters and changes.

75 78 83 87 4 4.1 4.2 4.2

My direct supervisor has the skills and knowledge to successfully lead.

82 75 80 87 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.2


75 76 75 86 4 4.1 4 4.2


77 78 74 86 4 4.1 4 4.2

I have the tools needed to succeed in my job. 76 82 79 82 4 4 4 4

My direct supervisor’s expectations are clear. 77 76 80 82 4 4 4.1 4.1 1Rank ordered from highest to lowest % Agree and Strongly Agree 2Using a 5 point scale where 1=Strongly Disagree, 3=Somewhat Agree, Somewhat Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree

In House Training Fifty six percent of the respondents reported taking advantage of in-house training. Last year 69% of

respondents reportedly took advantage of in-house training which was down from 80% in 2014. The

results are displayed in Tables 5 and 6.

Table 5: Are you taking advantage of in-house training opportunities?

N % Yes

Are you taking advantage of in-house training opportunities? 256 56



Table 6: Year over Year Comparison of Percentage of Employees Taking Advantage of Training Opportunities

2014 2015 2016

Are you taking advantage of in-house training opportunities? 80 69 56

Satisfaction with Finance More than eighty percent of respondents are satisfied or very satisfied with the responsiveness (85%)

and quality (84%) of the unit. This is an increase from last year of 5 and 9 percentage points respectively.

However, this is still a decline from 2013 and 2014. The results are displayed in Figure 2 and Tables 7

and 8.

Figure 2: Satisfaction with Finance (%)

Table 7: Satisfaction with Finance (%)

N

Not Applicable

(N) Very

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Somewhat Satisfied,

Somewhat Dissatisfied Satisfied

Very Satisfied

Satisfied & Very

Satisfied Mean

Responsiveness of Finance Unit 260 3 0% 2% 13% 52% 32% 85% 4.1 Quality of Finance Unit support 254 9 0% 2% 13% 52% 32% 84% 4.1

Table 8: Year over Year Comparison of Satisfaction with Finance

Satisfied & Very Satisfied Mean

2013 2014 2015 2016 2013 2014 2015 2016

Responsiveness of Finance Unit 89% 92% 80% 85% 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.1

Quality of Finance Unit support 87% 91% 75% 84% 4.2 4.3 3.9 4.1

Satisfaction with Human Resources More than eighty percent of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the Human Resources unit

on all three measures. Eighty one percent of the respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the

responsiveness of the HR Unit. The percentage of respondents who were satisfied or very satisfied with

the quality of administrative support and training support was 84% and 86% respectively. The results are

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Responsiveness of Finance Unit

Quality of Finance Unit support

1 2 3 4 5

1 = Very Dissatisfied, 5 = Very Satisfied



displayed in Figure 3 and Table 9. Ratings improved by 4% over last year on all three items. These

results are displayed in Table 10.

Figure 3: Satisfaction with Human Resources (%)

Table 9: Satisfaction with Human Resources (%)

N

Not Applicable

(N) Very


Somewhat Satisfied,


Very Satisfied

Satisfied & Very

Satisfied Mean

Responsiveness of Human Resources Unit 261 2 0% 4% 15% 48% 33% 81% 4.1 Quality of Human Resources Unit administrative support 260 3 1% 3% 12% 50% 33% 84% 4.1 Quality of HR training support 254 9 0% 2% 12% 54% 32% 86% 4.2

Table 10: Year over Year Comparison of Satisfaction with Human Resources


2013 2014 2015 2016 2013 2014 2015 2016 Responsiveness of Human Resources Unit 78% 84% 77% 81% 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.1 Quality of Human Resources Unit administrative support 77% 86% 80% 84% 3.9 4.1 4.0 4.1

Quality of HR training support N/A N/A 82% 86% N/A N/A 4.0 4.2

Satisfaction with IT Services Satisfaction with IT Services is also quite high with 90% to 98% of respondents satisfied or very satisfied

with the quality and responsiveness of the IT unit, the ability to connect to the network offsite and to

synchronize or archive data. The results are displayed in figure 4 and tables 11 and 12. Year over year

results were mixed. Scores for the responsiveness and quality of IT support were unchanged but fell 2%

for ability to connect to the network off site and 3% for the ability to synchronize or archive data.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Responsiveness of HR

Quality of HR administrative support

Quality of HR training support

1 2 3 4 5




Figure 4: Satisfaction with IT Services

Table 11: Satisfaction with IT Services (%)

N

Not Applicable

(N) Very


Somewhat Satisfied,


Very Satisfied

Satisfied & Very

Satisfied Mean

Responsiveness of IT support 261 2 0% 0% 2% 23% 74% 97% 4.7 Quality of IT support 259 4 0% 0% 2% 25% 72% 97% 4.7 Ability to connect to network from off-site 257 6 1% 1% 8% 34% 57% 90% 4.4 Ability to synchronize or archive data 255 8 0% 3% 10% 29% 57% 87% 4.4

Table 12: Year over Year Comparison of Satisfaction with IT Services


2013 2014 2015 2016 2013 2014 2015 2016

Responsiveness of IT support 97% 98% 98% 97% 4.5 4.8 4.7 4.7

Quality of IT support 99% 97% 97% 97% 4.5 4.7 4.7 4.7

Ability to connect to network from off-site 92% 95% 92% 90% 4.1 4.6 4.5 4.4 Ability to synchronize or archive data 81% 94% 90% 87% 4.0 4.6 4.5 4.4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Responsiveness of IT support

Quality of IT support

Ability to connect to network from off-site

Ability to synchronize or archive data

1 2 3 4 5




Employee Perceptions of Communications Finally, employees were asked about the adequacy, frequency and quality of communications. Each item

was rated on a 5 point scale. Most respondents rated these attributes a 3 or a 4. Eighty eight percent

rated adequacy a 3 or a 4 on a scale where 5 equaled more than adequate. Eighty three percent rated

frequency a 3 or a 4 on a scale where 5 equaled too often. Seventy five percent rated quality a 4 or a 5

on a scale where 5 equaled high quality. Eighty two percent rated the usefulness of the monthly

newsletter a 3, 4 or a 5.

Table 13: Employee Perceptions of Communications

ADEQUACY

N Less than Adequate 2 3 4

More than

Adequate

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = less than adequate and 5 = more than adequate, rate, as a whole, the amount of information you receive about the department. 260 2% 3% 37% 49% 9% FREQUENCY

N

Not Often

Enough 2 3 4 Too Often

On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = not often enough and 5 = too often, rate, as a whole, the frequency of information you receive about the department (e.g. strategic initiatives, board information, etc.) 259 2% 9% 42% 41% 5%

QUALITY

N Low

Quality 2 3 4 High

Quality On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = low quality and 5 = high quality, rate, as a whole, the quality of information you receive about the department. 258 2% 6% 32% 43% 17%

NEWSLETTER N

Not At All

Useful 2 3 4 Very

Useful On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = not at all useful and 5 = very useful, how useful do you find the monthly employee newsletters 260 2% 8% 38% 38% 13%

The largest share of respondents would like the agency to survey them one a year about their work

experience.

Table 14: How often would you like to be surveyed about your DECAL work experience?

Twice a year

Once a year Every other year

Every three years

Never N/A

How often would you like to be surveyed about your DECAL work experience? 28% 58% 12% 2% 0% 3



Open Ended Questions for 2016 A separate report of employee responses to the open ended questions has been provided. The survey

included 14 open ended questions. Responses to these questions provide many helpful insights. These

comments are meant to augment the quantitative results. They help identify policies and practices that

employees believe are working and those that employees believe require change.

Table 15 shows the actual number of respondents to each of the open ended questions. This number

varies considerably from a high of 187 to a low of just 37. These numbers are also expressed as a

percentage of the total sample (263). In some cases, a comment is subdivided into two or more because

it addresses multiple issues. This is why the total number of responses to a question may be smaller

than the total number of comments for the subcategories for the same question.

For each question, the responses have been organized into three categories: Plus, Delta and Neutral.

The Plus category includes positive comments and suggests that “it’s working as is.”

Delta includes comments suggesting “change is needed.”

Neutral comments are neither Plus nor Delta. We removed obvious non-responses such as

“N/A,” “No comment,” and etc.

Table 15: Breakdown of Open Ended Responses by Question Question Number N Percentage of Total

Total Number of Respondents 263 100.00%

Q3 Add additional comments relating to the above statements about the agency, your workplace and management in the space below.

41 16%

Plus 13 5%

Neutral 1 0%

Delta 27 10%

Q5 Add additional comments relating to the above statements about your direct supervisor.

40 15%

Plus 25 10%

Neutral 3 1%

Delta 12 5%

Q6 Why are you not taking advantage of in-house training opportunities?

100 38%

Plus 0 0%

Neutral 4 2%

Delta 96 37%

Q7 What additional training opportunities would you like to see offered?

89 34%

Plus 4 2%

Neutral 2 1%

Delta 83 32%

Q9 How could the Finance Unit more effectively or efficiently serve you?

48 18%

Plus 13 5%



Neutral 35 13%

Delta 0 0%

Q11 How could the Human Resources Unit more effectively or efficiently serve you?

51 19%

Plus 13 5%

Neutral 1 0%

Delta 37 14%

Q13 How could the IT Unit more effectively or efficiently serve you?

52 20%

Plus 32 12%

Neutral 0 0%

Delta 20 8%

Q18 What information would you like to see in the monthly employee newsletter?

37 14%

Plus 6 2%

Neutral 1 0%

Delta 30 11%

Q20 How could we improve communications within DECAL? 68 26%

Plus 10 4%

Neutral 0 0%

Delta 58 22%

Q21 What changes in DECAL policies and practices have you observed or experienced since completing this survey last year (March of 2015)?

70 27%

Plus 61 23%

Neutral 0 0%

Delta 9 3%

Q22 What do you like most about working at DECAL? 187 71%

Plus 187 71%

Neutral 0 0%

Delta 0 0%

Q23 What do you dislike most about working at DECAL? 129 49%

Plus 10 4%

Neutral 0 0%

Delta 119 45%

Q24 How could DECAL better support you in your work? 93 35%

Plus 10 4%

Neutral 0 0%

Delta 83 32%

Q25 Provide any other comments regarding your employment at DECAL.

50 19%

Plus 30 11%

Neutral 0 0%

Delta 20 8%



Analysis of Employee Subgroups The data set was divided into subgroups based on five variables: Division, Location, Executive Status,

Supervisory Status, and Years of Service (with DECAL). Respondents were assigned to subgroups by

DECAL.

Division: There were 9 Agency Defined Subgroups: Audits and Compliance, Child Care Services,

Executive/Administrative, Federal Programs, Instructional Supports, IT, Legal, Pre K, and System

Reform.

Location: Atlanta (Main Office) and Field

Both Senior Leadership and Supervisory Status variables were simply divided into those people

who were in the group versus those who were not.

Years of Service: 5 Subgroups: Less than 1 year, 1 to 3 years, 4 to 5 years, 6 to 10 years, 11 years

or more.

Significance testing was performed on the subgroups associated with each variable to identify

statistically significant differences across groups. Due to the variance in group sizes and response rates,

as well as the number of groups measured, divisions, as a grouping variable was disqualified from

significance testing.

Years of Service was analyzed using comparative means testing with a Games-Howell post hoc test to

determine whether differences between subgroups were statistically significant. The Games-Howell post

hoc was used due to the large difference in the number of respondents in each group.

For the remaining three variables, Location, Executive Status and Supervisory Status, an independent

samples t-test was employed to compare the means between members and non-members of each

subgroup.

Results of these tests are shown for all survey questions except the open ended questions. The results

are shown by survey question. For each question, the results for each variable and related subgroups

are shown in a separate table.

Please note that the tables for Division may employ abbreviations. They will be noted where applicable.



Section 1: DECAL & Supervisors

Table 16-A: Mean Scores of Employee Perceptions of DECAL and their Direct Supervisor by Division

DECAL Audits CCS Exec./ Admin.

Federal Programs

Instr. Support

I feel that I am sufficiently recognized for my work. 3.5 3.7 3.7 2.5 3.8

Innovation and operational improvements are encouraged at DECAL.

3.6 3.7 3.8 3.5 3.8

I am proud of our achievements as an organization. 4.0 4.2 4.3 3.9 4.4

I recommend DECAL as a good place to work. 3.9 4.1 4.0 3.6 4.1

I am satisfied with my job. 3.8 4.0 4.0 3.3 4.1

All work units (e.g., CCS, Quality, Pre-K, System Reform, Federal Programs, IT, Audits, Legal, Nutrition, Research) work together to ensure that DECAL functions like one department.

3.4 3.3 3.5 3.1 3.5


4.0 3.8 3.7 3.3 3.7

Any stress associated with my job is manageable. 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.4 4.1

Change and innovation are encouraged at DECAL. 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.4 3.9

Sufficient coordination and communication occurs between DECAL divisions.

3.6 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.3


3.8 4.3 4.1 3.8 4.3


3.8 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.2

DIRECT SUPERVISOR Audits CCS Exec./ Admin.

Federal Programs

Instr. Support

I have the tools needed to succeed in my job. 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.4 4.0

My direct supervisor’s expectations are clear. 3.9 4.2 4.0 3.2 4.1

My direct supervisor is accessible. 4.4 4.3 4.3 3.6 4.3

My direct supervisor is easy to talk with. 4.2 4.4 4.3 3.6 4.2


4.3 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.0


4.0 4.2 4.0 3.6 4.2


4.0 4.4 4.2 3.8 4.1


4.4 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.3


4.2 4.4 4.4 3.8 4.0


4.1 4.3 4.2 3.6 3.9

On a five point scale, where 5 was a favorable response & 1 was unfavorable. * Divisions are Abbreviated as follows: Audits: Audits and Compliance, CCS: Child Care Services, Exec./Admin.: Executive and Administration,

Instr. Support: Instructional Support



Table 16-A: Mean Scores of Employee Perceptions of DECAL and their Direct Supervisor by Division (Continued)

DECAL IT Legal Pre-K System Reform

I feel that I am sufficiently recognized for my work. 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9


3.7 3.6 4.0 4.0

I am proud of our achievements as an organization. 4.1 3.9 4.5 4.3

I recommend DECAL as a good place to work. 4.2 3.8 4.4 4.2

I am satisfied with my job. 4.1 3.5 4.3 4.2


3.7 3.3 3.6 3.2


3.9 3.9 4.1 4.1

Any stress associated with my job is manageable. 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.1

Change and innovation are encouraged at DECAL. 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.9


3.5 3.3 3.5 3.4


4.2 3.8 4.5 4.4


4.1 4.0 4.4 4.3

DIRECT SUPERVISOR IT Legal Pre-K System Reform

I have the tools needed to succeed in my job. 4.2 3.8 4.3 4.3

My direct supervisor’s expectations are clear. 4.1 3.8 4.4 4.1

My direct supervisor is accessible. 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.4

My direct supervisor is easy to talk with. 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.4


3.9 4.1 4.5 4.0


3.9 4.3 4.5 4.2


4.0 4.3 4.5 4.2


4.2 4.5 4.7 4.4


4.2 4.5 4.7 4.4


3.8 4.3 4.5 4.2

On a five point scale, where 5 was a favorable response & 1 was unfavorable.



Table 16-B: Mean Scores of Employee Perceptions of DECAL and their Direct Supervisor by Location

DECAL Atlanta - Main Office Field

I feel that I am sufficiently recognized for my work. 3.5 3.7 Innovation and operational improvements are encouraged at DECAL.

3.7 3.8

I am proud of our achievements as an organization. 4.2 4.2

I recommend DECAL as a good place to work. 4.0 4.1

I am satisfied with my job. 3.9 4.1*


3.5 3.3

The overall climate at DECAL is conducive to productivity. 3.8 3.9

Any stress associated with my job is manageable. 3.8 3.9

Change and innovation are encouraged at DECAL. 3.8 3.8


3.3 3.4

I expect to be employed by the agency 12 months from now. 4.1 4.3*

Generally speaking, DECAL is heading in the right direction. 4.1 4.2

DIRECT SUPERVISOR Atlanta - Main Office Field

I have the tools needed to succeed in my job. 4.0 4.1

My direct supervisor’s expectations are clear. 4.0 4.2

My direct supervisor is accessible. 4.2 4.4

My direct supervisor is easy to talk with. 4.2 4.4


4.1 4.3*


4.0 4.3*


4.1 4.3*


4.4 4.5

My direct supervisor seems to care about me as a person. 4.3 4.4

My direct supervisor provides the right type of supervision. 4.1 4.3

On a five point scale, where 5 was a favorable response while 1 was an unfavorable response.

* Indicates a significant difference between groups at the 0.05 level.



Table 16-C: Mean Scores of Employee Perceptions of DECAL and their Direct Supervisor by Executive and

Supervisory Status

DECAL Senior

Leadership Non - Senior Leadership Supervisor

Non-Supervisor

I feel that I am sufficiently recognized for my work. 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.6


3.9 3.8 3.9 3.8

I am proud of our achievements as an organization. 4.4 4.2 4.4 4.2*

I recommend DECAL as a good place to work. 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.0*

I am satisfied with my job. 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.0


3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4

The overall climate at DECAL is conducive to productivity. 4.0 3.8 4.0 3.8

Any stress associated with my job is manageable. 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.9

Change and innovation are encouraged at DECAL. 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.8


3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3


4.3 4.2 4.4 4.2

Generally speaking, DECAL is heading in the right direction. 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.1*

DIRECT SUPERVISOR Senior

Leadership Non - Senior Leadership Supervisor

Non-Supervisor

I have the tools needed to succeed in my job. 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.0

My direct supervisor’s expectations are clear. 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.1

My direct supervisor is accessible. 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.3

My direct supervisor is easy to talk with. 4.5 4.3* 4.4 4.3


4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2


4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2


4.3 4.2 4.2 4.3


4.7 4.4* 4.5 4.4

My direct supervisor seems to care about me as a person. 4.6 4.3* 4.4 4.3

My direct supervisor provides the right type of supervision. 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2





Table 16-D: Mean Scores of Employee Perceptions of DECAL and their Direct Supervisor by Years of Service

DECAL

Less than 1 year

1 to 3 years

4 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

11 or more years


3.8

3.7 3.5 3.5 3.5


4.0 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.8


4.3 4.2 3.9 4.2 4.3


4.1 4.1 3.9 4.1 4.0

I am satisfied with my job. 4.1 4.1 3.7 3.9 3.9

All work units work together to ensure that DECAL functions like one department.

3.5 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4


4.0 3.9 3.4 3.7 3.8


4.1 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6


4.0 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.8


3.5 3.4 3.1 3.4 3.1


4.2 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.1


4.3 4.2 3.9 4.2 4.1

DIRECT SUPERVISOR Less than 1

year 1 to 3 years

4 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

11 or more years

I have the tools needed to succeed in my job.

3.9 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.1

My direct supervisor’s expectations are clear.

4.0 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.1

My direct supervisor is accessible. 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.3

My direct supervisor is easy to talk with. 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.1 4.4


4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2


4.2 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.2


4.4 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.3


4.4 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.5


4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.5


4.2 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.4


Superscripts a,b,c,d = significant difference between matching letters at p<0.05.



Section 2: Services

Table 17-A: Mean Scores of Employee Perceptions of the Finance, HR and IT Units by Division

Audits & Compliance

Child Care Services

Exec./ Admin.

Federal Programs

Instr. Support

Finance Unit

Responsiveness of Finance Unit 3.9 4.1 4.5 3.9 4.4

Quality of Finance Unit support 4.0 4.1 4.6 4.0 4.5

HR Unit

Responsiveness of HR 4.2 4.2 4.1 3.9 4.3

Quality of HR administrative support 4.1 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.2

Quality of HR training support 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.0

IT Unit

Responsiveness of IT support 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.4

Quality of IT support 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5


4.3 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.4

Ability to synchronize or archive data 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.3

Table 17-A: Mean Scores of Employee Perceptions of the Finance, HR and IT Units by Division (Continued)

IT Legal Pre-K System Reform

Finance Unit

Responsiveness of Finance Unit 3.8 3.9 4.3 4.2

Quality of Finance Unit support 3.9 3.9 4.4 3.9

HR Unit

Responsiveness of HR 3.8 3.1 4.3 3.9

Quality of HR administrative support 3.8 3.7 4.4 3.9

Quality of HR training support 3.8 3.7 4.4 4.3

IT Unit

Responsiveness of IT support 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.8

Quality of IT support 4.7 4.7 4.9 4.8


4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6

Ability to synchronize or archive data 4.6 4.1 4.8 4.7 On a five point scale, 5 was a favorable response & 1 was unfavorable.

* Divisions are Abbreviated as follows: Exec./Admin.: Executive and Administration, Instr. Support: Instructional Support



Table 17-B: Mean Scores of Employee Perceptions of the Finance, HR and IT Units by Location

Atlanta - Main Office Field

Finance Unit

Responsiveness of Finance Unit 4.2 4.1

Quality of Finance Unit support 4.2 4.1

HR Unit

Responsiveness of HR 3.9 4.2*

Quality of HR administrative support 3.9 4.2*

Quality of HR training support 4.1 4.2

IT Unit

Responsiveness of IT support 4.8 4.7

Quality of IT support 4.7 4.7

Ability to connect to network from off-site 4.5 4.4

Ability to synchronize or archive data 4.6 4.3*



Table 17-C: Mean Scores of Employee Perceptions of the Finance, HR and IT Units by Executive and Supervisory

Status

Senior Leadership

Non - Senior Leadership Supervisor Non-Supervisor

Finance Unit

Responsiveness of Finance Unit 4.3 4.1* 4.3 4.1

Quality of Finance Unit support 4.4 4.1 4.3 4.1*

HR Unit

Responsiveness of HR 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1

Quality of HR administrative support 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.1

Quality of HR training support 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.1

IT Unit

Responsiveness of IT support 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.7

Quality of IT support 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7

Ability to connect to network from off-site 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.4

Ability to synchronize or archive data 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.4





Table 17-D: Mean Scores of Employee Perceptions of the Finance, HR and IT Units by Years of Service

Less than 1 year

1 to 3 years

4 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

11 or more years

Finance Unit

Responsiveness of Finance Unit 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.1 4.3

Quality of Finance Unit support 4.4 4.1 4.3 4.1 4.4

HR Unit

Responsiveness of HR 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1

Quality of HR administrative support 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.1

Quality of HR training support 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.3

IT Unit

Responsiveness of IT support 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.8

Quality of IT support 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8

Ability to connect to network from off-site 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.4

Ability to synchronize or archive data 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.4 4.5



Section 3: Communications Table 18-A: Mean Scores of Employee Perceptions of Agency Communications by Division

Audits CCS Exec./ Admin.

Federal Programs

Instr. Support

Rate the AMOUNT of information you receive about the department. 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.6

Rate the FREQUENCY of information you receive about the department (e.g., strategic initiatives, board information, etc.)

3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.1

Rate the QUALITY of information you receive about the department.

3.9 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.4

How useful do you find the monthly employee newsletters?

3.7 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.6

Table 18-A: Mean Scores of Employee Perceptions of Agency Communications by Division (Continued)

IT Legal Pre-K System Reform

Rate the AMOUNT of information you receive about the department.

3.5 3.2 3.6 3.5


3.3 3.0 3.5 3.3


3.6 3.8 3.7 3.7

How useful do you find the monthly employee newsletters? 3.6 3.3 3.5 3.8 On a five point scale, where 5 was a favorable response & 1 was unfavorable.

* Divisions are Abbreviated as follows: Audits: Audits and Compliance, CCS: Child Care Services, Exec./Admin.: Executive and Administration,

Instr. Support: Instructional Support



Table 18-B: Mean Scores of Employee Perceptions of Agency Communications by Location

Atlanta - Main Office Field

Rate the AMOUNT of information you receive about the department. 3.5 3.5


3.2 3.3

Rate the QUALITY of information you receive about the department. 3.6 3.6

How useful do you find the monthly employee newsletters? 3.4 3.4



Table 18-C: Mean Scores of Employee Perceptions of Agency Communications by Executive and Supervisory

Status

Senior Leadership

Non - Senior Leadership Supervisor

Non-Supervisor


3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6


3.4 3.4 3.3 3.4


3.8 3.7 3.8 3.6


3.3 3.6 3.4 3.5



Table 18-D: Mean Scores of Employee Perceptions of Agency Communications by Years of Service

Less than 1 year

1 to 3 years

4 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

11 or more years


3.9 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6


3.4 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.2


4.0 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6


3.7 3.5 3.2 3.5 3.4





Major Conclusions The results of the employee survey are very good. The quality of the workplace as perceived by agency

employees is good and improving as indicated by increased employee satisfaction. Satisfaction is

computed from the responses to two items:

1. I recommend DECAL as a good place to work.

2. I am satisfied with my job.

Seventy nine percent of the respondents rated employee satisfaction a 4 or a 5, up from 71% last year.

The mean score for the ESI (Employee Satisfaction Index) is 4.1, up from 3.9 last year. When indexed to

100, the Employee Satisfaction Index equals 82%. This is a 4% increase over last year.

Perceptions of workplace quality drive employee satisfaction and DECAL has many strengths in this area.

Five of the 12 items used to measure employee perceptions of DECAL and all ten items related to direct

supervisors are agency strengths using the criterion that at least 75% of the respondents rated the item

a 4 or a 5.

Last year we recommended three items as high impact improvement targets:

1. The overall climate at DECAL is conducive to productivity. 2. Any stress associated with my job is manageable. 3. I feel that I am sufficiently recognized for my work.

Performance improved on all three items. The percentage of respondents who rated these items a 4 or

a 5 was 74, 73 and 63. This represents improvements of 3, 7 and 6 percent respectively.

Nevertheless, the agency would benefit from continuing its efforts related to employee recognition.

Recognition is well documented as a driver of employee satisfaction and deserves more attention. In

our work with the state of Georgia we have documented a strong relationship between recognition and

employee satisfaction across all types of state agencies. Improvement in this area could be a significant

catalyst to improve next year’s results.

Three other opportunities for improving the workplace are:

1. Innovation and operational improvements are encouraged at DECAL.

2. All work units work together to ensure that DECAL functions like one department.

3. Sufficient coordination and communication occurs between DECAL divisions.

Ratings on these three drivers of employee satisfaction were the lowest of the items used to measure

perceived workplace quality. Only 67% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that innovation

and operational improvements are encouraged, a decline of 1% from last year. The need for better

interdivisional coordination and communication is evidenced by the fact that these items received

scores of 47 and 45 percent. These are the lowest scores of all 12 items used to measure employee

perceptions of DECAL.



The second item was recommended as a high impact improvement target last year and improved

substantially over last year. While the rating has increased, interdivisional cooperation is still not highly

rated and should be considered a high impact improvement target again.

Rapid Process Improvement (RPI) should be considered as a means for improving in this area. The

agency may be able to restructure processes to enable employees to work smarter not harder or longer.

Rapid Process Improvement may also be helpful for improving communication among work units so that

they work together to ensure that DECAL functions like one department. If the agency does pursue

process improvement, management needs to be aware that slightly more than a third of employees still

do not believe that the agency encourages change and innovation.

For reasons unknown to us, the percentage of employees who report that they took advantage of in-

house training has declined to 56% from 80% three years ago. This deserves some attention. Thirty

eight percent of the respondents provided a reason for why they don’t take advantage of in-house

training and 34% provided a response when asked what additional training topics they’d like to see

offered.

The responsiveness of the Finance and the HR units is very good and improving.

The responsiveness of the IT unit is very good. Employee perceptions of the quality and responsiveness

of IT remains nearly perfect. The percent of respondents who rated the ability connect to the network

offsite and to synchronize or archive data satisfied or very satisfied declined slightly but still remain high.

Finally, the quality of agency communication with employees and the usefulness of the monthly

newsletter can be improved and several suggestions were provided in response to the open ended

question about communication. Also, an annual employee survey is preferred by most employees.

Essentially, the agency made good progress by focusing on organizational climate and job related stress.

But continued emphasis should be given to employee recognition, innovation and interdivisional

coordination and communication. The concern here is that employees have consistently indicated a

need to improve in these areas. Failure to do so may have lasting adverse consequences.

The findings from the analysis of the open ended questions and the subgroups provide depth to the

overall survey findings. These insights should be used to help shape the agency’s improvement plan.



APPENDIX



2016 DECAL Employee Survey

1) The statements below relate to DECAL. Choose the response that most closely reflects

your level of agreement with each statement.

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Somewhat

Agree,

Somewhat

Disagree

Agree Strongly

Agree


Innovation and operational improvements are

encouraged at DECAL.



I am satisfied with my job.

All work units (e.g., CCS, Quality, Pre-K, System

Reform, Federal Programs, IT, Audits, Legal,

Nutrition, Research) work together to ensure that

DECAL functions like one department.

The overall climate at DECAL is conducive to

productivity.



Sufficient coordination and communication occurs

between DECAL divisions.

I expect to be employed by the agency 12 months

from now.

Generally speaking, DECAL is heading in the right

direction.



2) Record additional comments relating to the above statements in the following space.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

3) The statements below relate to your direct supervisor. Choose the response that most

closely reflects your level of agreement with each statement.

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Somewhat Agree,

Somewhat Disagree

Agree Strongly

Agree

I have the tools needed to succeed in my

job.

My direct supervisor’s expectations are

clear.

My direct supervisor is accessible.

My direct supervisor is easy to talk with.

My direct supervisor keeps me updated

about important matters and changes.

My direct supervisor leads by example –

actions match his/her words.

My direct supervisor has the skills and

knowledge to successfully lead.

My direct supervisor supports my need to

balance work and family issues.

My direct supervisor seems to care about

me as a person.

My direct supervisor provides the right

type of supervision.

4) Record additional comments relating to the above statements in the following space.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________



Questions 5 and 6 address staff training opportunities.

5) Are you taking advantage of in-house training opportunities?

Yes

No

If no, why are you not taking advantage of in-house training opportunities?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

6) What additional training opportunities would you like to see offered?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

7) Rate your level of satisfaction with the Finance Unit. For each item, choose the response

that most closely reflects your level of satisfaction.

Very

Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied Somewhat Satisfied,

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Satisfied Very

Satisfied

N/A

Responsiveness of

Finance Unit

Quality of Finance Unit

support

8) How could the Finance Unit more effectively or efficiently serve you?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________



9) Rate your level of satisfaction with the Human Resources (HR) Unit. For each item,

choose the response that most closely reflects your level of satisfaction.

Very

Dissatisfied



Satisfied Very

Satisfied

N/A

Responsiveness of HR

Quality of HR

administrative support

Quality of HR training

support

10) How could the Human Resources Unit more effectively or efficiently serve you?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

11) Rate your level of satisfaction with the IT Unit. For each item, choose the response that

most closely reflects your level of satisfaction.

Very

Dissatisfied



Satisfied Very

Satisfied

Not

Applicable

Responsiveness of IT

support

Quality of IT support

Ability to connect to

network from off-site

Ability to synchronize or

archive data



12) How could the IT Unit more effectively or efficiently serve you?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

13) On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1=less than adequate to 5= more than adequate, rate the

AMOUNT of information you receive about the department.

1 - Less than adequate (too little)

2

3

4

5 - More than adequate (too much)

14) On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1=not often enough to 5=too often, rate the FREQUENCY of

information you receive about the department (e.g., strategic initiatives, board information,

etc.)

1 - Not often enough

2

3

4

5 - Too often

15) On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1=low quality to 5=high quality, rate the QUALITY of

information you receive about the department.

1 - Low Quality

2

3

4

5 - High Quality

16) On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = not at all useful and 5 = very useful, how useful do you

find the monthly employee newsletters

1 - Not at all Useful

2

3

4

5 - Very Useful



17) What information would you like to see in the monthly employee newsletter?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

18) How often would you like to be surveyed about your DECAL work experience?

Twice a year Once a year Every other year Every three years Never N/A

Frequency

19) How could we improve communications within DECAL?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

20) What changes in DECAL policies and practices have you observed or experienced since

completing this survey last year (March of 2015)?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

21) What do you like most about working at DECAL?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________



22) What do you dislike most about working at DECAL?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

23) How could DECAL better support you in your work?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

24) Provide any other comments regarding your employment at DECAL.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________



Public Performance and Management Group Project Staff

M. Christine Lewis is a Research Consultant with the Public Performance and Management Group. Dr.

Lewis is the lead researcher on several major projects at Georgia State University. Her research focuses

on customer centered organizational change. Dr. Lewis helps organizations create value for customers,

get fully recognized for the value they create, and get fully funded based on the value they create and

the potential to enhance that value. She helps organizations adopt a customer focused approach to

service improvement, service design and recovery from service failures. Dr. Lewis conducts research to

determine the key drivers of customer and employee satisfaction for organizations so they can “move

the meter” on satisfaction by targeting high impact improvement projects. She also conducts research

with customers and employees to facilitate product and service design decisions and to help

organizations understand how customers choose a specific brand. Dr. Lewis assists organizations with

the development and execution of effective communication strategies, including the development of a

brand identity, brand awareness and all aspects of brand management. She was previously employed by

AT&T in strategic planning, market, sales and product management. She has served as a consultant to a

variety of corporations, nonprofits and government organizations. She is also a former professor of

Marketing at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. Dr. Lewis holds a B.S. in Business

Administration from the University of Nebraska and an MBA and Ph.D. in Business Administration from

Michigan State University.

Jack Strickland is a Research Associate with the Public Performance and Management Group at Georgia

State University. His design and presentation expertise has evolved from years in business consulting

and public education. Jack currently holds a Master of Public Administration degree from Georgia State

University and Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology and History from Mercer University, and was a

nominee for a Presidential Management Fellowship in 2009.

Greg Streib Director Voice: 404.939.1235 Email: [email protected]



The Public Performance and Management Group

The Public Performance and Management Group (PPM) is an outreach unit of the Andrew Young School

of Policy Studies at Georgia State University. We offer an array of services to assist public sector

organizations in strengthening strategic and operational performance. Our core activities include

executive level training and development; applied research, policy analysis and program evaluation;

short or long term assistance with planning and performance improvement; and dissemination of

effective public sector practices. We emphasize real-world, evidence-based solutions that support public

leaders’ commitment to effective governance.

PPM faculty and staff work in a wide range of local government, state agency, and non-profit

organization settings. Activities are highly customized to reflect the philosophy and core values of public

sector customers. Each member of PPM’s faculty and staff possesses multiple years of experience in

public management as well as university-based support to government agencies and programs.

Examples of past customers include city and county governments; state and local advisory councils;

community non-profit organizations; and grassroots advocacy organizations.

The Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University is the organizational home to

PPM. The School creates and disseminates knowledge and methods that are highly valued by policy

makers and leaders in the public and nonprofit worlds. Faculty members represent diverse professional

backgrounds, and offer valuable specialties in public management, nonprofit administration, urban

studies and economics. Faculty and research associates work in tandem with seven centers to provide

technical assistance to more than 35 countries, as well as further our knowledge of domestic issues in

health, transportation, and public finance, for example.

Greg Streib Director Voice: 404.939.1235 Email: [email protected]

state of georgia employee satisfaction research …...georgia state university public performance...

Documents