Steering Committee Summation report in relation to the Staff Culture and Climate survey - 2017

26 July 2017

Context

In 2016 the Rector’s Management Team (RMT) gave approval for an Institutional Culture and Climate

Survey to be conducted to provide Stellenbosch University (SU) staff with an opportunity to reflect on

and express their views regarding a range of important matters affecting them as staff members,

particularly in the current volatile and challenging climate in South Africa. The economic challenges

due to consistent underfunding of the higher education environment and the increased student

protests associated with the #FeesMustFall movement have taken its toll on staff morale.

The report must be evaluated as a baseline from which SU can develop strategies to address the issues

raised. The survey should be repeated biennially so as to enable a long-term longitudinal study, assess

any culture and climate changes, and map progress.

Content

This report consists of a summation with inputs from the steering committee, a report from Prof

Martin Kidd at the Centre for Statistical Consultation and the final report from the Spearhead Group.

A comprehensive spreadsheet of all raw data has been provided, which enables a more detailed and

nuanced analysis. This can then be used to provide feedback to select stake holder groups such as the

Women’s Forum and any organisational units that would like to engage with the specifics of the report.

Process

Once the survey had been approved, the steering committee in conjunction with the Spearhead Group

devised the questions and finalised the survey design. The survey was open to all permanent and fixed-

term staff members at SU between 6 February 2017 and 21 February 2017. Results were compiled and,

after three drafts, the final report was delivered. In addition, the steering committee identified the

need to provide further, SU-specific context for these results, interpreting the survey report in more

detail to serve as a basis from which the RMT can determine its action plans. This summation report

contains this SU-specific context.

Interpretation

The steering committee would like to thank the RMT for supporting the survey. The survey results

provide valuable, reliable and verifiable information, which the RMT can use to identify topics of critical

concern that should be addressed to enhance SU’s competitiveness and reputation in the higher

education sector both locally and abroad. Without access to this information, the RMT would

continuously be responding to suggestion, perception and hearsay, regardless of its accuracy,

relevance or reach.

The overall results of the survey indicate that there is a neutral to positive score of the University in all

19 factors measured amongst all staff groupings. Two factors had a “negative” score below 3, however

they were found to not be statistically validated.

Rectors' Management Team (RMT) Meeting 1 August 2017 Item 7(a)

1

Eight factors were found to have a positive score (3.5-5.0). These factors include: sustaining the

momentum on excellence (3.97), feeling connected (4.15), sense of belonging (3.76), opportunities for

development (3.56), cultural awareness (4.00), the approach towards transformation (3.85), and

equality (3.52) and addressing discrimination (3.5).

The positive perception regarding sustaining the momentum on excellence was identified as the most

important area of feedback, considering the relevance and impact of excellence in the University’s

entire narrative. This is particularly important in terms of the University’s values as articulated in its

Institutional Intent and Strategy (IIS). Considering that academics, in particular, strive for excellence in

their core duties and that SU has an exceptionally large number of research outputs, high student

throughput rates and a fine quality of student graduates in general, it was encouraging that, on the

whole, staff had a positive perception of this factor. It is quite possible that although SU continues to

perform well in terms of outputs, the effort and climate associated with this high level of delivery is

taxing on staff in general, which may create dissatisfaction during the input process. Qualitative data

further indicates that staff members are proud of SU because of its current excellence and quality.

In general, staff members feel positive about the working environment at SU. They feel connected to

the University and have a strong sense of belonging. However, opportunities for development trended

towards the neutral, and a further evaluation of this factor needs to be investigated as it may be based

on unrealistic expectations, particularly in terms of development opportunities or career progression.

These themes were further reflected in the qualitative data, particularly related to career development

and job security, workload, stress factors, salaries and benefits, as well as performance management

systems. Staff in general had a neutral view on employee retention, indicating ambivalence with the

working environment, competitive benefits, remuneration and career opportunities.

The third major area reflected in the survey relates to cultural awareness, approach to transformation,

and addressing discrimination and equality. A positive score on these factors was unexpected. Staff in

general are culturally aware and have a positive approach to transformation. Staff members are

however more neutrally aligned to addressing discrimination, diversity management and equality.

Seven factors were found to have a neutral to positive score (3.0-3.5). These factors include: employee

retention (3.10), decision making involvement (3.31), SU leadership (3.41), language policy (3.38), and

diversity management (3.40). These neutral factors were not evaluated in more depth in light of the

following more significant positive factors. .

Overall, staff have a positive perception of the University, including institutional factors, working

conditions, transformation and diversity. At a 2.5% variance, no real difference could be found

between scoring based on gender, race, organisational structure or language. The only statistically

verifiable difference was that associated with age: staff members below the age of 40 were found to

be more negative towards the university, while those above the age of 40 were generally more

positive. The management of the University seems to be perceived in a positive light, which is in line

with the overall view and perception of most participating staff.

Additional areas for considerations presented by the Spearhead Group are as follows:

White staff have the strongest sense of belonging and positive experience of equality .English

staff are more culturally aware.

Coloured, Black African, Indian and Asian (CBIA) staff display the most positive approach to

transformation.

Newly appointed professional administrative and support services (PASS)) staff are positive

towards SU’s leadership.

Academic staff have the best career prospects and the most positive view of equality.

Rectors' Management Team (RMT) Meeting 1 August 2017 Item 7(a)

2

Qualitative data in tables 13-22 provide further insight to be evaluated within the context of specific

questions. Although only 30% of respondents responded to qualitative questions, these answers

were more in depth and insightful. Certain common threads could be found identified between the

qualitative questions such as human resource-specific issues (career development, remuneration,

performance management, workload, and work pressure), leadership, communication and

transformation.

Recommendations and actions

The steering committee strongly feels that the entire report, including this summation, should be

communicated to all staff and made available on a central website.

A structured communication strategy and engagement process must be implemented to assist the

“sense-making” process, and address topics of concern that can improve SU’s positioning and

reputation in the higher education sector both locally and abroad. The RMT’s support is requested for

the development of action plans to address the identified areas of concern, and provide staff with an

opportunity to offer solutions and deal with neutral factors. Qualitative data shows that staff’s diverse

and innovative approaches can result in business improvement, if employees are afforded

opportunities to interact and provide input. These plans of action should be effectively communicated

to University staff.

A targeted and nuanced analysis must be completed for specific groups (in particular: gender, CBIA

and PASS staff), to enable more specific feedback. For longitudinal survey purposes, the RMT should

allow for biennial completion of the survey to obtain feedback and determine progress with specific

factor objectives.

The survey should eventually inform the actions contained in the new institutional vision and strategy

and the resulting environmental plans. All organisational structures should take ownership of the

survey and implement plans to address issues of concern affecting the culture and climate at SU as

part of their core objectives.

Finally, the RMT should consider improving engagement with staff from a more diverse range of

groups, including gender, race, age, language and organisational division. A greater diversity of views

will better reflect the diverse staff corps and enable a more inclusive outcome.

Concluding remarks

The RMT should be congratulated on having taken this positive step of completing this Culture and

Climate survey. The survey has captured an honest reflection of what staff who participated in the

process feel and think about SU. The results reflect positively on the University, its management and

its staff corps This survey report should be seen as an enabler that will allow for interventions to

improve the culture and climate at SU and build a truly integrated work environment where all staff

are treated with respect, are afforded the chance to develop to their full potential, and collectively

pursue the core values and objectives of the institution.

Steering Committee:

Prof Nico Koopman (Chair) Prof Tobie de Coning Mr Victor Mothobi Dr Phumzile Mmope Dr Michael-John Freeborough Ms Monica du Toit

Rectors' Management Team (RMT) Meeting 1 August 2017 Item 7(a)

3

Ms Almene Potgieter Prof André van der Merwe Mr Sello Molapo Ms Adele Josias (Scribe)

Rectors' Management Team (RMT) Meeting 1 August 2017 Item 7(a)

4