Agenda item

To present the Employee Survey Results since September 2011 and provide expertise in the areas of employee engagement and advocacy.

"Please note that ownership and Intellectual Property Rights in all data, the evaluation analysis, methodology and materials rests and remains with Best Companies Limited. Best Companies grants a limited right for the organisation being surveyed to use the information we provided internally within their organisation solely for the purpose of improvement.

In addition, to the above, the methodology, survey and question items contained are all covered by copyright and must not be reproduced without the express written permission of Best Companies.

Best Companies are comfortable with the data held within this report being produced for internal staff development and improvement but has requested this is not reproduced for any other purpose."

Declarations of interest:

None

Witnesses:

Amy Bailey, Strategic Change and Efficiency Manager

Ken Akers, HR Relationship Manager

Key points raised in the discussion:

1.    The Board expressed disappointment regarding the low response rate to the survey and asked how a better response rate could be achieved in the next survey, which was due to happen October 2016. The Strategic Change and Efficiency Manager agreed that the response rate was disappointing and informed the Board of the clear guidelines set by Best Companies (the organisation commissioned to run the survey), which meant that the Council was not able to promote the survey in advance because it was in competition with other organisations.  However, now that the first survey had been held there was more scope to raise awareness of future surveys. Whilst the last full Surrey survey was completed in September 2011, a series of small locally-managed surveys had been completed since that time.  These would now be better managed so that the Best Companies survey would not overlap with other mechanisms for canvassing staff opinion, and this was also expected to improve the response rate. The Board were informed that the Benchmarking data were available and would be circulated to members in due course.

2.    Concerns were expressed regarding the area of Fair Deal as it received the lowest overall score in the survey. The HR Relationship Manager explained that the Council was currently consulting on a new Pay and Reward scheme, which aimed to develop a better pay structure for staff and address some of the issues raised. It was stated that the aim was to become an employer of choice and fulfill commitments to residents at the highest possible standard. The consultation period would end on 22 April 2016. Unions would then be consulted and recommendations made to the People, Performance and Development Committee (PPDC).  So far over 800 managers had attended briefings, and 2,200 members of staff had signed up to attend one of the consultation events.  The aim was to implement changes by 1 July 2016. The Council Overview Board would review the outcomes of the consultation prior to the PPDC meeting.

3.    It was reported that when comparing overall scores to other organisations, the County Council generally scored positively for areas such as My Manager, Personal Growth, My Team and Wellbeing. It was said that the factors which were below the benchmark were Leadership and Fair Deal. The Board requested further a further break-down of the results by service.

4.    Whilst acknowledging the positive results in many areas of the survey, the Board highlighted the fact that one of the lowest scores was in response to the question about senior managers doing a lot of telling and not much listening.  The Board asked whether this was an issue for particular services and whether more could be done to embed the Council’s coaching culture. It was noted that the Council would continue to invest in its coaching approach and the High Performance Development Programme (HPDP) for managers.  ‘Leading with Confidence’ events for middle managers had also recently been held.  The Council was using the survey results to inform its improvement strategy, and had also commissioned Surrey University to review the effectiveness of the HPDP programme.  The Pay & Reward scheme would focus on performance and engagement, and the skills required of managers would be a key focus of the appraisal process.

5.    In relation to welfare issues flagged up by the survey, the Council had signed up to the Healthy Workplace Charter and had re-tendered for Occupational Health support and guidance to incorporate physiotherapy and mental wellbeing.

6.    It was agreed  each Scrutiny Board Chairman would consider whether there were any specific issues from the staff survey for their service areas which would require further scrutiny.

Resolved:

(a)   That a further break-down of the staff survey results by service be provided to the Board.

(b)   That Scrutiny Board Chairman consider whether there were any specific issues from the staff survey for their areas which would require further scrutiny.

(c)   That the outcomes of the review of the effectiveness of the High Performance Development Programme be shared with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Board.

(d) That a further break-down of the bench marking data which compares other employers to be provided to the Board.

Action by: Ken Akers/Amy Bailey