Ems

2011 Workplace Motivation Survey
2011

Table of Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Objective of Survey Overview of the Sample Analysis and Interpretation Guidelines Summary of Findings Summary and Next Steps Detailed Findings Implications

I. Objective Of Survey

I. Objectives
Our objectives are to…
 Understand the drivers of employee engagement and satisfaction  Improve worker / management relations  Help supervisors improve the efficiency and effectiveness of work in their units

 Improve the training curriculum of the Company
 Inform and prioritise key organisational development initiatives

 Help the HR function optimise the programmes, policies and procedures of the company.

I. Objectives - contd
• This initial survey will:  Provide an excellent starting point for expanding the survey to the rest of the Company by successfully developing a model for learning, communication and change management.  Create a baseline and benchmarks to measure progress on key organisational initiatives over time.  Determine key differences by unit / department and other demographic factors.

• In addition, we will…
 Identify our core strengths and what can be built on.

II. Overview of the Sample

% of Respondents Against Total Permanent Employees

Indirect

Direct

Total

No. of Employees

212

612

824 171

No. of Participants

100

71

%

47.17

11.60

20.75

% of Respondents Against Total Permanent Employees
Employee Participation
Indirect
47.17 %

Direct

Total

20.75 %

212 824 612

11.60 %

Overall Responses by Demographics
Indirect Gender (n=100) Direct Gender (n=71)

N/A 8% Male 48%

Male 37%
Female 44%

N/A 27%

Female 36%

Overall Responses by Demographics

Years Of Service Indirect (n=100)
> 20 Yrs 1% 16~20 Yrs 20% 11~ 15 Yrs 14% N/A 21% 11~ 15 Yrs 7%

Years Of Service Direct (n=71)
> 20 Yrs 2% 16~20 Yrs 11% 6 ~ 10 Yrs 11% < 5 Yrs 28% N/A 41%

6 ~ 10 Yrs 16%

< 5 Yrs 28%

Overall Responses by Demographics
Department Indirect (n=100)
EDP Puchasing Finance IPC Planning Admin Production FGWH Maintenance AISMT O QA Prod. Eng R&D P&A

Department Direct (n=71)

Production

1% 1% 9% 10%

1% 6% 6% 7%

100%

2% 3%

6% 4%

19% 9% 3%

1%

12%
11

Overall Responses by Demographics Position Indirect (n=100)
N/A Asst. Officer AE Engineer Material Handler Sr.Executive Sr.Officer Sr.Supervisor Store Contract Asst. Engineer Asst. Supervisor Asst.Manager Executive Manager Skill 2 Sr.QA Sr.Technician Store Handler A.Guy Asst. Technician Clerk Executive Officer Sr.Clerk Sr. Store Handler Supervisor Technician

Position Indirect (n=100)
Asst.Supervisor Repairer Operator Leader Supervisor P.Controler N/A Technician Sr.G.Leader Skill 1 G.Leader Asst. Engineer Skill 4%

3%

2%

8%

16%

5% 4% 2% 1% 3% 1% 3% 3% 7% 5%

1% 1%

27% 27%

4% 8% 1% 1% 5% 4%

4%
2%

2% 1% 3%

1% 1% 1% 1%

4%
14% 2% 14% 2%

2%

12

III. Analysis & Interpretation Guidelines

13

For ease of interpretation, we have collapsed survey scores into three categories: Agree, Not Sure, Disagree

• • •

For five-point scale questions, the survey data were tabulated based on the percentage of people who chose each response in the five-point scale Consistent with standard practice, the five-point scale was collapsed into a threepoint scale (Agree, Not Sure, and Disagree). This three-part scale is used in the graphs. Agree Not Sure Disagree We also collapsed other five-point scale responses. The following table summarises:

% Agree Strongly Agree 5 Agree

% Not Sure Not Sure

% Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 1

4

3

2

14

The following guidelines is helpful to review the data and begin to think about next course of action ( achievements and priorities) • Strengths  Greater than 70% favorable is a strength if the unfavorable response is less than 20% • Opportunities for improvement  Items with a 20% or more unfavorable response  50% favorable or less is a danger signal

• Areas for further consideration  “Bi-modal” distributions, where responses are mostly either favorable or unfavorable, with few neutrals (e.g. 40% favorable, 20% neutral, 40% unfavorable).
 These items are interesting because most respondents feel strongly positive or strongly negative with very little middle ground. Items with large neutral scores (more than 25%) indicate that respondents either are uncertain about how they feel regarding the item or do not feel strongly either way
15



IV. Summary Of Findings

16

Overall Satisfaction Level
Indirect Direct

33% 55%

Overall Satisfaction Level
Understand Company Vision, Mission &… Good Company Benefits Conducive Working Environment Good Co-operation & Teamwork
80 50 51 15 37 22 11 39 73 32 50 32 37 44 71 68

Indirect

Direct

Understand Company Operation & Situation

Support From Superiors

Strong Commitment Towards Company

Possess Positive Atitude

18

Summary
• Findings ……  Both groups scored below target of 70% on the Overall Satisfaction Level ( Direct= 55% & Indirect = 33%).  Strong areas for indirect group is: • Understand Company Vision , Mission & Direction ( 80%). • Good Co-operation & Teamwork ( 73%). • Strong Commitment Towards Company ( 71%).  The rest of the areas are below target.  There is no clear strong area for indirect group. The score is at critical level in all 8 areas.

•

•

This survey also tells us…. • That many respondents in both groups were reluctant to express their true feelings since the survey was conducted during annual increment period. • Most of respondents from indirect group did not complete the survey questionnaire. • It is possible that they did not know how to answer the questions. SUGGESTION ….. • Conduct survey Company –wide (all employees). • Conduct 1 to 1 Question & Answer session with selected employees

Q&A