employee satisfaction survey - … satisfaction … · kfs employee satisfaction survey - 2012...

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY

October 2012

Report

SF Smart Frontiers

Prepared and submitted by Smart Frontiers P.O. Box 6169 – 00100, Nairobi, Kenya

[email protected]

KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers ii

Acknowledgements

This study was undertaken by Smart Frontiers. We would like to thank everyone who contributed the

various aspects towards the realization of this survey. We wish to convey thanks to the staff of KFS for

their enthusiastic help in conducting this assessment: Abraham Wafula and Eric Wainaina greatly

appreciative to the persons of the invaluable advice in relation to the consultative discussion that provided

critical support and direction during the course of data collection. Special thanks are also extended to the

data collection and data entry teams for their due dedication and commitment throughout the data

collection and data entry process.

Finally, and most important, appreciation is extended to the KFS stakeholder group who willingly

participated in the survey and for providing the valuable information that is the outcome of this report.

Smart Frontiers however solely remain responsible for any of the errors that may remain.

Consultancy team

June 2012


Smart Frontiers iii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

DK Don’t Know

GoK Government of Kenya

ENCOM Enforcement and Compliance Division

ESI Employ Satisfaction Index

ESS Employ Satisfaction Survey

KFC Kenya Forest College

KFC Kenya Forest Service

NR No Response

PC Performance Contracts

RBM Result Based Management

SD Standard Deviation

SPSS Statistical Products and Services Solutions


Smart Frontiers iv

Table of Contents

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... v

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... vi

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1

Section 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Background 3

1.2 This Survey 4

1.2.1 Research strategy ............................................................................................ 4 1.2.2 Target Segments of the survey ....................................................................... 4 1.2.3 Geographical scope......................................................................................... 5 1.2.4 Sampling technique ......................................................................................... 5 1.2.5 Sample distribution ......................................................................................... 6 1.2.6 Characteristics of the sample ......................................................................... 7 Section 2: The Forest Sector in Kenya .................................................................................. 8

2.1 The Kenya Forest Service 8

2.2 Situation analysis of the forest sector 9

2.2.1 Economic importance and role towards Vision 2030 .................................. 10 2.2.2 Challenges ..................................................................................................... 11 Section 3: Results and Discussion ........................................................................................... 12

3.1 Overall Performance 12

3.1.1 Employee satisfaction index ......................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Performance gaps ......................................................................................... 13 3.2 Employee perceptions of service delivery dimensions 15

3.2.1 Communication and delivery of organizational mandate ........................... 15 3.2.2 Leadership and management ....................................................................... 16 3.2.3 Communication and engagement ................................................................. 17 3.2.4 Teamwork ....................................................................................................... 18 3.2.5 Recruitment, discipline and promotion practices ....................................... 19 3.2.6 Staff training and development .................................................................... 20 3.2.7 Supervision .................................................................................................... 21 3.2.8 Remuneration and benefits ........................................................................... 22 3.2.9 Relationship with co-workers ....................................................................... 23 3.2.10 Recognition .................................................................................................. 24 3.2.11 Performance appraisal ......................................................................................... 25 3.3 Factors employee driving satisfaction 25

3.3.1 Factors that underline employee satisfaction ............................................. 25 3.4 Promise of loyalty 28

3.4.1 Intent to continue working with KFS ............................................................ 28 3.4.2 Willingness to continue working at same facility/station ........................... 29 3.4.3 Willingness to recommend KFS as a good place to work in ...................... 30 3.5 Outlook on change in KFS over time 31

3.5.1 Employee perceptions of improvements over time..................................... 31 3.5.2 Suggestions for improvement ...................................................................... 32 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 33


Smart Frontiers v

List of Figures

Fig 3.1: Satisfaction with KFS on communication and delivery of organizational

mandate 16

Fig 3.2: Satisfaction with KFS on leadership and management 17

Fig 3.3: Satisfaction with communication and engagement 18

Fig 3.4: Satisfaction with teamwork 19

Fig 3.5: Satisfaction with recruitment, discipline and promotion practices 20

Fig 3.6: Satisfaction with staff training and development 21

Fig 3.7: Satisfaction with supervision 22

Fig 3.8: Satisfaction with remuneration and benefits 23

Fig 3.9: Satisfaction with relationship with co-workers 24

Fig 3.10: Satisfaction with recognition 24

Fig 3.11: Satisfaction with recognition 25

Fig. 3.12: Contribution of factors to satisfaction 28

Fig. 3.13: Overall inclination to look for another job 29

Fig. 3.14: Overall willingness to continue working at the same station 30

Fig. 3.15: Overall willingness to recommend KFS as a good place to work in 31

Fig. 3.16: Perceptions of change over time 31


Smart Frontiers vi

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Sample distribution by conservancy 6

Table 1.2: Sample characteristics 7

Table 2.1: Level of forest coverage between 1990 and 2010 11

Table 3.1: Employee Satisfaction Index 12

Table 3.2: Satisfaction gaps across the service delivery dimensions 12

Table 3.2: Satisfaction gaps across the service delivery dimensions 14

Table 3.3: Satisfaction gaps across the service delivery dimensions – by

conservancy 15

Table 3.4: Factors that underline employee satisfaction 27

Table 3.5: Suggestions for improvement 32


Smart Frontiers 1

Executive Summary

This survey was conducted during the month of June by Smart Frontiers in the framework of

Performance Contracts to assess the quality of service delivery to the employees of Kenya Forest

Service and its constituent college, Kenya Forest College. In this way, the survey sought to establish

whether KFS is meeting its service expectations. The findings presented in this report highlight the key

issues emerging, and ultimately, the actions required to enhance employee satisfaction levels.

Key highlights of the survey findings are as follows:

Employee satisfaction index

The overall ESI was calculated to be 61.64. Across the ten service delivery dimensions, the index scores

are in the range between 52 and 77 points. The dimension of „Immediate supervisor‟ ranked the highest

(77.5), and conversely, the lowest ESI figures apparent in respect to „relationship with co-workers‟

(52.53) and „remuneration and benefits‟ (53.42)

Satisfaction gaps

In terms of satisfaction gaps, the results depict overall average gap of -1.31. Overall performance

expectation among the employees depicts an average score of 4.62, and overall satisfaction levels depict

an average score of 3.42. Looking at satisfaction gaps, the results show that, relative to employee

expectations, the performance of KFS is deemed weakest in respect to the following three dimensions:

relationship with co-workers (-2.07), remuneration and benefits (-1.88) and recruitment and promotion

(-1.75). On the other hand, relative to employee expectations, the performance of KFS is deemed to be

most strong in respect to four dimensions: staff training and development (-1.64), immediate supervisor

(-0.38), communication and delivery of mandate (0.72) and performance appraisal (-0.81).

Satisfaction drivers

On the basis of PCA, the data does indicate employee satisfaction is based on three platforms: The

leading factor, interpreted as Receptivity and communication, accounted for 28.73% of the variance.

This factor constitutes a large set of eleven items that are essentially related to the openness and

affability of the management system. The second factor, Staff development system accounted for 20.90%

of the variance. This factor comprised seven items that are primarily related to career, training and


Smart Frontiers 2

disciplinary issues. This can be interpreted as Alignment of corporate strategies, and accounted for

18.96% of the variance. As seen, this factor was defined by KFS‟s apparent strategic focus on its core

area of business.

Outlook on change in KFS over time

It is observed that about half of participants (57%) had a positive view, and conversely just above one-

quarter (26%) being unequivocally negative. Providing further opportunity for the participants to offer

suggestions for improvement on the job and work environment dimensions as a whole, the comments

obtained covered a broad range, with the highest number pointing to „work overload concern‟, reflected

in the „need to employ more staff, particularly rangers (26%), followed by resource and financing

concerns (11%). Other notable mention was „opportunities for staff training and development‟ (6%).

Lastly, on the basis of the survey findings, the following are suggested as ways to address areas where

there are gaps in service delivery.

1. Co-worker relations: Enhance co-worker relations through intra and inter-departmental social

activities among the staff

2. Training and development: Address staff training and development issues, with specific focus

on the following two areas: first, is the need to provide information on staff training

opportunities to build confidence on the nomination procedures; second, staff should provide

input into areas where they are in need of training,

3. Promotions: The Human Resource function needs to provide clear specifications of the staff

grading system and streamline staff promotion system

4. Communication: Although communication does not expressly emerge as an area of concern,

there is need to map out specific corporate measures that address negative perceptions,

particularly concerning recruitment and promotion, corruption and so on


Smart Frontiers 3

Section 1: Introduction

1.1 Background

The Government of Kenya (GoK) has embraced the Result Based Management (RBM) as a tool to

improving public service delivery. The essence of RBM is to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in the

delivery of public services, and that citizens can hold public servants accountable for the levels of

service they receive from public institutions. This is in line with Kenya‟s public service accountability

initiative known as Performance Contracts (PC), which was introduced in 2003, and which is expected

to support the goals and objectives outlined in Kenya‟s Vision 2030 strategy.1 The PC initiative forms

the basis of improvement in the public service delivery, which seeks to progressively work towards

increasing quality of output within public institutions.

Under these broader public sector reforms, the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) aims to ensure that services

are enhanced to the satisfaction of its customers and excellence is attained in its operations. In

complement to this Reform Agenda, one pillar in this move is to monitor the level of satisfaction of both

the internal and external stakeholders.

Thus, in pursuit of ensuring that services are enhanced to the satisfaction of its customers, KFS

commissioned a survey with a view to gain insights into the satisfaction with and perceptions of its

services. The outcomes are intended to assist the KFS to align management and directorial processes

with employee and customer expectations in order to facilitate greater performance. This survey

generally focuses on the KFS Service Delivery Charters on the key performance indicators.

1 Muthaura, F., (2003), Head of Public Service


Smart Frontiers 4

1.2 This Survey

The broader motivation underpinning this Employee Satisfaction Survey (ESS) was to assess the quality

of service delivery to the employees of KFS and its constituent college, Kenya Forest College (KFC). In

this way, the survey sought to establish whether KFS is meeting its service expectations.

To that regard, the specific objectives of the survey comprised the following:

1. Develop a composite measure of staff satisfaction by use of Employee Satisfaction Index

(ESI), and use it to determine the overall rating of the current level of staff satisfaction;

2. Find out staff perception of the job dimensions;

3. Identify satisfaction gaps across various aspects of the job;

4. Identify specific areas that require improvement.

1.2.1 Research strategy

The general strategy involved a blend of techniques to maximize exposure to evidence. The preliminary

tasks involved a review of existing data and literature. One important goal was to evaluate how KFS has

performed in terms of service delivery over the past years. The previous survey approach and findings

were partly fed into the primary research in order to allow for tracking and comparison on a number of

aspects. The sources reviewed included the following:

Previous customer and employee satisfaction survey reports

KFS Service Charter

Strategic Plan

Other documents

1.2.2 Target Segments of the survey

As aforementioned, the target segments of this ESS consisted of all employees of KFS, including the

employees of KFC.


Smart Frontiers 5

1.2.3 Geographical scope

It was generally recognized here that in order to obtain breadth of perspectives, the data collected should

represent a range of locations across the country. Working with three zones per conservancy (exception

being Nairobi, Ewaso North and North Eastern), the survey had a total coverage of 24 zones. While it

would be of interest to include more zones, the cost of so doing and the logistical requirements involved

would outweigh its potential value. These zones are nonetheless selected to reflect differences in terms

of in terms of geographical location, socio-economic diversities and size of conservancies, and can thus

reflect representativeness to that regard.

1.2.4 Sampling technique

The study population of this survey consisted of all KFS employees, including the staff of Kenya Forest

College (KFC). The sampling frame used was therefore constituted a-priori list of employees obtained

from KFS to build an estimate of staff distribution.

In distributing the sample, due consideration was given to employee diversity in terms of geographical

location (zones). To achieve this, a three-stage cluster sampling design was employed; this entailed the

following stages:

i. First stage: census selection of all the 10 conservancies, plus Londiani Kenya Forest College

(KFC).

ii. Second stage: Unequal selection probabilities of the Zones, with three Zones being selected in

each Conservancy. Technically speaking, it would not be feasible to employee equal selection

probabilities of the zones due to the small number of Zones in each conservancy. However,

given the relatively higher heterogeneity levels, this was not likely to compromise

representation.

iii. Third stage Unequal selection probabilities of the Forest Stations. Again, unequal selection

probabilities was undertaken due to the small number of Stations in each Zone, and to ensure

that diversity in terms of location and size is reflected

iv. Fourth stage: Census-based approach for selection of survey participants at station level. On this

account, the survey provided opportunity to all employees in the respective stations to respond

to the questionnaire. However, given that not all employees would be available or willing to


Smart Frontiers 6

participate in the survey, it was anticipated that at least 50% to 60% would be reached

approximately 600 employees. This calculation is determined using hit rates of 60%.

Data collection involved the use of self-completion approach by the employees. To enhance anonymity,

personal details (name, employee number etc.) were not be required, but their personal details in terms

of age, department, gender and number of years in service were essential. Self-completion approach was

deemed ideal since:

It eliminates interviewer bias as an employee administers the interview to him/herself.

Eliminates the element of fear from the employees in that their responses cannot be traced back

to them.

It gives the employee more time to think through each question and therefore give more quality

responses.

1.2.5 Sample distribution

As shown in Table 1.1, the employee sample was spread across the ten KFS conservancies in addition to

the KFC. The highest percentages were drawn from Mau (14%), Central Highlands (11%) and Coast

(11%). Conversely, the lowest sample was drawn from North Eastern (2%) and Ewaso North (3%).

Table 1.1: Sample distribution by conservancy

Conservancy Number Percent

Central Highlands 74 11

Coast 72 11

Eastern 88 13

Ewaso North 22 3

KFC 49 7

Mau 90 14

Nairobi 69 10

North Eastern 11 2

North Rift 47 7

Nyanza 67 10

Western 69 10


Smart Frontiers 7

1.2.6 Characteristics of the sample

Table 1.2 displays the sample characteristics in terms of gender, years in service and age. In terms of

gender, the sample depicts askew in favour of males, depicting 73% against 25%, female. Regarding

years in service, it is seen that the bulk of the sample (27%) has worked for over 10 years with KFS,

while 10% have worked for 1 year or less. In terms of age, the highest proportion (34%) was in the

middle age 31 to 44 years, with a combined proportion of 48% being 45 years and above.

Table 1.2: Sample characteristics

Gender

Male 479 73

Female 163 25

NR 18 3

Years in service

1 yr 63 10

2 to 3 yrs 34 5

4 to 5 yrs 71 11

5 to10 yrs 69 10

10+ yrs 175 27

NR 247 37

Age

18-24 9 1

25 to 30 92 14

31-44 223 34

45-50 158 24

Above 50 156 24

NR 22 3


Smart Frontiers 8

Section 2: The Forest Sector in Kenya

2.1 The Kenya Forest Service

The oversight institution responsible for management of the forest sector in Kenya is the KFS. The KFS

was established by an act of Parliament as a body corporate under the Forest Act, 2005, to provide for

the establishment, development and sustainable management, including conservation and rational

utilization of forest resources for the socio-economic development of the country. Under the existing

legislation, the broader mandate of KFS extends to all forests.

Mandate

To provide for the establishment, development and sustainable management, including conservation and

rational utilization of forest resources for environmental protection and socio-economic development of

the country

Core Functions

On this account, the specific functions of KFS include the following:

1. To sustainably manage natural forests for social, economic and environmental benefits

2. Increase productivity of industrial forest plantations and enhance efficiency in wood utilization

3. Promote farm forestry and commercial tree farming

4. Promote efficient utilization and marketing of forest products

5. To promote sustainable management of forests in the drylands

6. To protect forestry resources and KFS property

7. To develop and maintain essential infrastructure for effective forest management and protection

Vision

“To be the leading organization of excellence in sustainable forest management and conservation”


Smart Frontiers 9

Mission

“To enhance conservation and sustainable management of forests and allied resources for environmental

stability and socio-economic development”

Stakeholders

In undertaking it functions, KFS works with a broad range of stakeholders (customers). The key

customers include but not limited to:

1. Communities and land owners e.g. community forest associations, organized community

groups, farmers, pastoralists and commercial tree growers.

2. Private Sector e.g. licensees, concessionaires, saw miller, ecotourism based enterprises, Small

and Medium Enterprises and Suppliers

3. Non Government Organizations (local and international)

4. Development partners (governmental and non-governmental)

5. Government agencies: these include local authorities and parastatals

6. The General public

7. Service providers

2.2 Situation analysis of the forest sector

Forests are among the Kenya‟s important natural resources as they supply goods and services for socio

economic and cultural development. The gazetted forestland is estimated to be 1.7 million hectares. This

is just about 2.5 % per cent of the country‟s land area. Recent estimates, based on remote sensing,

indicate that Kenya has a critical 1.7 per cent of closed canopy forest cover (UNEP, 2001).

The gazetted forests constitute 0.12 million hectares of plantation forest, 1.21 million hectares of

indigenous forest, and 0.5 million hectares of protective bush and grassland. A total of 36.7 million

hectares of other forest associations exist under other legal frame works that include National Parks,

Ranches, Trustlands and forests private ownership. As Water Catchment, forests in Kenya play a vital

role as home to the nation‟s “Water towers”, i.e. the five main water catchments (Mt Kenya,

Cherangani, Aberdare‟s, Mau and Mt Elgon) constituting the bulk of Kenya‟s high forests.


Smart Frontiers 10

2.2.1 Economic importance and role towards Vision 2030

Kenya‟s Vision 2030 notes that, globally, deforestation and forest degradation accounts for 20% of

green house gases (GHG) emissions and that forest conservation can provide 20% of the solution to

global warming. It therefore calls for the urgent need to conserve, protect and rejuvenate Kenya‟s

forests. The Vision 2030 recognizes the importance of forest industries to the national economy -

accounting for more than 2% of the GDP.

Forestry business in many African countries is mainly transacted in the informal sector. This is a sector

that operates at the interface of the monetized and traditional economies. The types of activities that

characterize the sector include subsistence collection of forest products, processing and trade in

firewood, charcoal, forest foods and handicrafts. It is assumed that in some countries, business

conducted in the informal forestry sector may contribute more to rural livelihoods than that in the formal

forestry sector. They provide employment opportunities in various industries, thereby contributing to

improved income and livelihoods of many Kenyans. These include: sawmills, pulp and paper industry,

woodfuel industry, basketry, charcoal production, marketing and transportation industry, wood curving

industry, and non-timber forest products industries.

The Forest Act 2005 and the KFS strategic plan (2006 to 2011) stipulate that Kenya‟s forests will be

broadly managed for the following purposes:

1) Biodiversity, soil and water conservation and provision of other environmental services;

2) Wood production (timber, pulp, woodfuel and poles) and employment – current and potential;

3) Conservation of wildlife habitats; and,

4) Production of non-wood forest products and ecotourism development. More specifically, the

Act clearly states that plantation forests will be managed primarily for the production of wood

and other forest products and services for commercial purposes.

The ban on forest timber harvesting which has now been reviewed was for a long time a major

constraint to forest management and in particular, it affects the level of royalty collection, the quality of

timber products (including exposing plantations to risk of fires and disease/insect infestation),

insufficient or lack of raw materials supply, and increased cost of forest commodities.


Smart Frontiers 11

2.2.2 Challenges

One of the main challenges currently facing the sector is deforestation and degradation. Loss of forest

resources, general land degradation and desertification are serious environmental as well as socio-

economic problems globally and in Kenya.2 Three key drivers have been identified as having immensely

contributed to this problem in Kenya. These include: Clearing for agriculture, unsustainable utilization

and poor governance and institutional failures. Thus, the past two decade has seen decline in the

coverage of the sub-total forest land by about 12,050 ha annually.

Table 2.1: Level of forest coverage between 1990 and 2010

Category of forest resource

(using FAO definitions) Area (‘000 Ha)

Annual Change

(‘000 Ha)

1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 - 2010

1. Indigenous closed Canopy Forest 1,240 1,190 1,165 1,140 -5

2. Indigenous Mangroves 80 80 80 80 0

3. Open woodlands 2,150 2,100 2,075 2,050 -5

4. Public Plantation Forests 170 134 119 107 -3.15

5. Private Plantation forests 68 78 83 90 +1.1

Sub - total Forest land

(total of above categories) 3,708 3,582 2,357 3,467 -12.05

6. Bush-land 24,800 24,635 24,570 24,510 -14.5

7. Farms with Trees 9,420 10,020 10,320 10,385 +48.25

Total Area of Kenya 58,037 58,037 58,037 58,037 0

2 Mr Aeneas Chuma, Resident Representative, UNDP, Kenya


Smart Frontiers 12

Section 3: Results and Discussion

3.1 Overall Performance

3.1.1 Employee satisfaction index

For the overall measurement of the ESI, a composite score based on 14 dimensions of service delivery

was computed. Table 3.1 reports the indices by aggregate and specific service dimensions. The overall

ESI was calculated to be 61.64.

Across the ten service delivery dimensions, the index scores are in the range between 52 and 77 points.

The dimension of „Immediate supervisor‟ ranked the highest (77.5), and conversely, the lowest ESI

figures apparent in respect to „relationship with co-workers‟ (52.53) and „remuneration and benefits‟

(53.42)

Table 3.1: Employee Satisfaction Index

Satisfaction Index

Overall Index 61.64

Immediate supervisor 77.50

Performance Appraisal 73.50

Communication and delivery of Organizational Mandate 71.54

Teamwork 67.18

Communication and engagement 62.18

Leadership and management 57.81

Recognition 57.32

Staff Development and Training 56.99

Remuneration and Benefits 53.42

Relationship with co-workers 52.53


Smart Frontiers 13

3.1.2 Performance gaps

To measure performance gaps, participants were asked to rate various service delivery attributes, first

for expectations and then for satisfaction. This analysis focused on the difference between expectations

and how they perceived KFC‟s performance. Table 3.2 shows the performance gaps to that regard.

Recording an average gap of -1.31, performance expectation record an average score of 4.62, and

satisfaction levels recording an average score of 3.42 are observed. Looking at satisfaction gaps, the

results show that, relative to employee expectations, the performance of KFS is deemed to be most weak

in respect to the following three dimensions (top row):

- Relationship with co-workers (-2.07)

- Remuneration and benefits (-1.88)

- Recruitment and promotion (-1.75)

On the other hand, relative to employee expectations, the performance of KFS is deemed to be most

strong in respect to four dimensions (bottom row):

- Staff training and development (-1.64)

- Immediate Supervisor (-0.38)

- Communication and delivery of mandate (0.72)

- Performance appraisal (-0.81)

Finally, relative to their expectations, employee satisfaction levels are mid-range on four dimensions

(middle row):

- Teamwork (-1.20)

- Communication and engagement (-1.26)

- Leadership and management (-1.34)

- Recognition (-1.36)

Accordingly, in order to improve satisfaction levels, the first three areas that depict the widest gaps

would require the greatest attention, while the mid-range dimensions would require modest attention.


Smart Frontiers 14

Table 3.2: Satisfaction gaps across the service delivery dimensions

Performance

Expectation

Gaps

Average 3.42 4.62 -1.31

Relationship with co-workers 2.9 4.73 -2.07

Remuneration and benefits 2.8 4.71 -1.88

Recruitment and promotion 3.0 4.58 -1.75

Staff training and development 3.1 4.55 -1.64

Recognition 3.1 4.38 -1.36

Leadership and management 3.2 4.63 -1.34

Communication and engagement 3.5 4.56 -1.26

Teamwork 3.8 4.77 -1.20

Performance appraisal 3.7 4.62 -0.81

Communication and delivery of organizational mandate 4.3 4.71 -0.72

Immediate Supervisor 4.2 4.57 -0.38

In Table 3.3, the satisfaction gaps are presented by the conservancies. Focusing on the key three

dimensions, it is apparent that the gaps are more nuanced in specific conservancies. In respect to

„relationship with co-workers‟, the gaps emerge quite strongly in all conservancies, except Western and

North Rift. With regard to „remuneration and benefits‟, the concern is most strong in Nairobi, Mau and

KFC personnel. In respect to „recruitment and promotions‟, concerns are most strong in Nairobi,

Eastern, North Rift and among KFC personnel.


Smart Frontiers 15

Table 3.3: Satisfaction gaps across the service delivery dimensions – by conservancy

NRB CH Coast EST EN Mau WSN NE NRT NYZ KFC

Average -1.54 -1.03 -1.39 -1.62 -1.25 -1.26 -1.20 -1.23 -1.09 -1.11 -1.67

Relationship with co-workers -2.04 -2.19 -2.11 -2.33 -1.90 -1.92 -1.81 -2.89 -1.83 -2.24 -2.00

Remuneration and benefits -2.17 -1.81 -1.81 -1.88 -1.79 -1.95 -1.89 -1.57 -1.71 -1.79 -2.00

Recruitment & promotion -1.99 -1.28 -1.77 -2.14 -1.58 -1.78 -1.59 -1.26 -1.91 -1.48 -2.18

Staff training and development -2.00 -1.35 -1.61 -1.91 -1.75 -1.62 -1.41 -1.63 -1.31 -1.41 -2.27

Recognition -1.60 -0.93 -1.46 -1.86 -1.63 -1.14 -1.27 -0.63 -1.01 -1.26 -1.87

Leadership & management -1.44 -1.21 -1.38 -1.81 -0.59 -1.15 -1.39 -0.94 -1.07 -1.09 -1.80

Communication & engagement -1.73 -0.82 -1.50 -1.74 -1.45 -0.89 -1.07 -1.43 -1.06 -0.88 -1.82

Teamwork -1.19 -0.23 -1.66 -1.39 -1.10 -1.81 -0.99 -0.99 -0.43 -1.07 -2.05

Performance appraisal -1.17 -0.75 -0.61 -0.89 -0.63 -0.80 -0.95 -1.36 -0.63 -0.49 -1.15

Communication & delivery of

organizational mandate -0.73 -0.60 -1.21 -1.17 -1.00 -0.43 -0.46 -0.07 -0.84 -0.39 -0.64

Immediate Supervisor -0.87 -0.15 -0.13 -0.69 -0.34 -0.39 -0.35 -0.72 -0.16 -0.15 -0.57

NRB (Nairobi); CH (Central Highlands); EST (Eastern); EN (Ewaso North); WSN (Western); NE (North Eastern); NRT (North Rift); NYZ (Nyanza); KFC (Kenya

Forest College)

3.2 Employee perceptions of service delivery dimensions

3.2.1 Communication and delivery of organizational mandate

The survey commenced with the dimension of „communication and delivery of Organizational

Mandate‟, which was addressed using three attributes depicted in Figure 3.1. Presenting results for the

positive ratings („strongly/ somewhat agree‟), results show modest satisfaction rating of 64%. It is

notable that satisfaction levels on all the three items are somewhat positive, evidenced by positive scores

ranging from 68% to 60%.


Smart Frontiers 16

Fig 3.1: Satisfaction with KFS on communication and delivery of organizational mandate

3.2.2 Leadership and management

Leadership and management is a broad dimension and was evaluated from an expansive perspective,

using twelve-attributes, displayed in Figure 3.2. On average, just below half (45%) showed satisfaction

on this dimension. The figures obtained for the twelve aspects, however, vary quite dramatically, with

positive scores ranging from 59% to 33%. It is observed that less than half of the participants had a

positive view on eight aspects.

Grading these in two categories, modestly low scores are observed in respect to the following:

- Address of gender equity issues

- Recognition and utilization of employees‟ abilities and skills

- Accountability and transparency in managing the institution and its resources,

and Sensitivity to employees‟ concerns

On the other hand, the lowest scores are apparent in respect to the following aspects:

- (Facilitation of) open, stress-free and comfortable work environment

- Pursuit and reward of meritocracy

- Staff participation in decision making, and

- Rewarding staff creativity and innovation

60

65

68

64

5

5

3

4

31

21

22

25

5

9

7

7

0% 100%

The management has made ef fort to ensure the staf f are aware and understand its strategic

direction

I believe KFS Vision and Mission are realistic and relevant

KFS's Vision, Mission, Objectives and Core values are well stated and communicated to

staf f

Average score

Agree Neither Disagree DK/NR


Smart Frontiers 17

Fig 3.2: Satisfaction with KFS on leadership and management

3.2.3 Communication and engagement

The assessment of satisfaction with regard to communication and engagement was addressed using nine

attributes. Summarizing the results (see Figure 3.3), on average, a positive score of 47% is observed,

with the satisfaction ratings ranging from 54% to 42%.

From a broad perspective, it is apparent that across the nine attributes examined, lower satisfaction

(below 50%) is evident across the board, exception being on the aspect of „upward communication‟,

which notwithstanding, still depicts modest ratings (54%).

33

34

34

38

40

43

45

48

55

56

59

59

45

7

5

5

6

6

5

8

5

5

5

5

5

6

49

54

48

51

47

42

42

36

30

31

30

24

40

10

7

13

5

7

10

6

10

10

8

7

11

9

0% 100%

The management encourages and rewards staf f creativity and innovation

KFS leadership seeks staf fs' opinions in decision making

KFS leadership encourages, pursues and rewards meritocracy

The management has created an open, stress f ree& comfortable work environment

KFS leadership is sensitive to employees concerns

The leadership upholds accountability and transparency in managing the KFS and its resources

The management recognizes and makes use of employees abilities and skills

KFS leadership promotes gender equity through af f irmative action

KFS leadership adheres to scientif ic principles and professionalism

KFS leadeship encourages integrity and ethics to guide the conduct business

KFS leadership encourages teamwork and partnerships

KFS leadership encourages and promotes strong partnerships with our stakeholders

Average score



Smart Frontiers 18

Fig 3.3: Satisfaction with communication and engagement

3.2.4 Teamwork

The dimension of teamwork was measured using eight attributes displayed in Figure 3.4. On average,

modest satisfaction ratings are evident, recording 58% agreeability rating. However, satisfaction ratings

ranging from 67% to 43% are observed across these aspects.

Focusing on the areas of relative concern, it is noted that the proportion of participants who positively

rated the „teamwork and team spirit in KFS as a whole‟, „effort used to institute and train team spirit,

and willingness to assist others without instruction from higher authorities‟ were comparatively lower,

depicting positive scores below 60%.

42

44

46

46

47

48

48

49

54

47

8

5

6

5

8

7

7

7

6

7

41

42

39

40

32

34

39

37

29

37

8

8

9

8

13

11

6

7

12

9

0% 100%

Feedback is always communicated promptly to the KFS staf f

The management always communicates with employees (whether there is a problem or not)

The KFS results/decisions are clearly communicated to the staf f

The KFS management maintains ef fective communication with staf f

There is adequate and quick communication between departments

I learn about what is going on in the KFS through formal communication than grapevine

There is adequate and quick communication in the organization

KFS believes in open and honest communication among staf f

Upward communication is encouraged at KFS

Average score



Smart Frontiers 19

Fig 3.4: Satisfaction with teamwork

3.2.5 Recruitment, discipline and promotion practices

The assessment of satisfaction with regard to recruitment, discipline and promotion was addressed using

nine attributes. As depicted in Figure 3.5, average positive score of 32% is observed, with relative

variation in the satisfaction ratings, ranging from 40% to 24%. Participants‟ inability to provide a rating

on the attributes is nonetheless quite apparent, as evidenced by the relatively high percentage “DK/NR”

response (from 10% to 22%).

The results indicate relatively lower satisfaction levels across all nine attributes (all depicting less than

half). On account of these results, however, the most notable concerns here can be discerned in three

areas: „transparency of recruitment and selection processes‟, „transparency of promotions‟, and „access

to KFS Human Resources Policies and Procedures Manual‟, these three aspects eliciting lower than

30% of the positive score.

43

50

56

61

61

62

67

67

58

5

4

6

5

6

6

3

4

5

42

37

30

27

25

25

24

23

29

10

8

9

7

8

7

7

7

8

0% 100%

There is teamwork and team spirit at KFS as a whole

KFS Leadership has spent effort to train and institute team spirit

I assist others without instructions to do so from higher authority

Teamwork is encourage and recognized by the leadership

Our team undertakes activities that promote and sustain team spirit

We share views before taking collective actions to get the jobs done

We always work and solve challenges as a team in my department/unit

Our departmental /unit head always encourages and inspires team spirit

Average score



Smart Frontiers 20

Fig 3.5: Satisfaction with recruitment, discipline and promotion practices

3.2.6 Staff training and development

With regard to staff training and development, eleven attributes were used to evaluate employee views

on this dimension. Almost consistent with the scores observed in respect to “recruitment, discipline and

promotion practices”, the results show average positive score of 36%, again with relatively high

percentage “DK/NR” response, from 7% to 26% (see Figure 3.6). More specifically, the observed

positive scores across the eleven attributes ranged from 58% to 29%.

It is observant that with exception of two attributes (i.e. relevancy of trainings attended and „the

adequacy of employees‟ current training to improve skills‟), results for the rest of the attributes are

relatively less positive, depicting positive scores less than 40%.

24

25

29

31

33

34

36

37

40

32

5

5

5

6

5

5

7

6

6

6

54

55

54

53

46

49

42

44

32

48

16

16

13

10

16

12

16

13

22

15

0% 100%

Recruitment & selection processes at KFS are transparent, fair and in line with HR Policies and

Procedures

Promotions at KFS are always transparent and done on Merit

I have a copy of KFS HR Policies and Procedures Manual (Code of Conduct)

KSF management has made effort to make the staff understand the HR Policies and Procedures

Manual

Gender balance/equity is always upheld while recruiting and promoting staff at KFS

I am fully aware of KFS Human Resources (HR) Policies and Procedures Manual

The Management always follows KFS HR Policies and Procedures while handling its staff matters

KSF is an equal opportunity employer

KFS management handles staff disciplinary issues transparently and according to the procedures in the

HR Manual

Average score



Smart Frontiers 21

Fig 3.6: Satisfaction with staff training and development

3.2.7 Supervision

Turning to supervision, views on this dimension were evaluated using ten attributes. It is noteworthy in

this assessment that, of the survey dimensions examined, this aspect elicited the highest positive ratings,

on average depicting 72%, with the scores on the specific attributes ranging from 76% to 68% (see

Figure 3.7).

Although depicting relatively high scores, and therefore not warranting much attention as areas of

concern, it is useful to note that the lowest positive ratings emerged in respect to the following two

areas; „supervisor asking for employee input to help make decisions‟ and „supervisor treatment of the

team members – equally, cordially, fairly and with respect.‟

29

30

31

33

33

33

34

34

34

50

58

36

5

5

6

6

6

4

3

6

7

4

7

6

40

42

48

45

38

45

49

43

44

38

22

41

26

23

15

16

23

18

15

17

15

7

13

17

0% 100%

KFS has well-established succession plan to all staff

KFS has an excellent staff training development plan for all its staff

KFS is good at identifying individual training needs

KFS Management provides equal opportunity

KFS has well-established talent management plan

All staff training and staff development activities are done transparently according the HR Manual

KFS will usually promote the right staff from inside before hiring people from outside

KFS has a clearly established career path for its entire staff

KFS provides training opportunities to staff transparently

I have enough training to improve my job skills

All training programmes I have attended are relevant to my job

Average score



Smart Frontiers 22

Fig 3.7: Satisfaction with supervision

3.2.8 Remuneration and benefits

Ten survey items were used to evaluate employee views about remuneration and benefits – highlighted

in Figure 3.8. Results suggest that employees generally view the remuneration and benefits issues in less

positive terms, noted, on average, by a positive score of 32%. More specifically, positive scores of 44%

to 19% are observed.

The results for all the ten attributes are generally relatively less positive, depicting positive scores less

than 50%, with the most notable concern apparent in three areas: „house allowance provided‟, „the range

of allowances provided to staff‟ and „the grading system‟.

68

69

70

70

71

71

75

75

76

76

72

4

3

3

5

4

5

4

4

4

2

4

21

22

15

20

19

16

15

16

16

16

18

7

7

11

6

7

8

6

6

5

5

7

0% 100%

My supervisor treats all team members equally, cordially, fairly and with respect

My supervisor asks me for input to help make decisions

My supervisor understands how to undertake staff performance appraisal

My supervisor commends me when I do my work well

My supervisor leads by example

My supervisor sets clear priorities for what needs to be achieved

My supervisor tells me when my work needs improvement

My supervisor treats me fairly and with respect

My supervisor is always accessible whenever I need him

If I have an issue relating to work, I am free to consult my supervisor

Average score



Smart Frontiers 23

Fig 3.8: Satisfaction with remuneration and benefits

3.2.9 Relationship with co-workers

The dimension of relationship with co-workers was measured using three attributes displayed in Figure

3.9. On average, depicting a positive score of 57%, the satisfaction ratings across the three attributes

ranged from 72% to 44%. Participants showed least satisfaction with „inter-departmental social

activities‟. (Note that the statements: “Staff face discrimination on the basis of training, gender, etc” and

“I like working alone rather than in teams” are recoded in the reverse for this analysis).

19

21

26

28

29

31

36

39

43

44

32

5

4

5

4

5

5

7

8

6

5

5

60

58

56

54

40

50

40

41

32

36

47

16

16

14

13

26

15

18

13

19

15

16

0% 100%

I am satisfied with the house allowance provided

I am satisfied with the range of allowances availed to staff

I am satisfied with the grading system

My salary and benefits are commensurate with my duties and responsibilities

All compensation/benefits are fair and based on performance

I am satisfied with the transport facilities offered

Our pay package is competitive as compared with other organizations

I am satisfied with terms and conditions of Service

I am satisfied with the Insurance Scheme provided to staff

I am satisfied with the medical scheme

Average score



Smart Frontiers 24

Fig 3.9: Satisfaction with relationship with co-workers

3.2.10 Recognition

Views about recognition were evaluated using three attributes – highlighted in Figure 3.10. On average,

a positive score of 44% was observed. Across the three attributes, the positive scores ranged 48% to

38%, with the most notable concern emerging in respect to the extent „individual initiatives are

encouraged and recognized‟.

Fig 3.10: Satisfaction with recognition

44

56

72

57

8

6

4

6

39

30

15

28

8

8

9

8

0% 100%

Inter-departmental social activities are given sufficient attention

*Staff face discrimination on the basis of training, gender, etc

*I like working alone rather than in teams

Average score


* valiables recorded in reverse

38

47

48

44

8

5

7

7

44

39

36

40

10

9

9

9

0% 100%

Individual initiatives are encouraged and recognized

KFS empowers me to make decisions on my job

Good work is recognized by the management and supervisors

Average score



Smart Frontiers 25

3.2.11 Performance appraisal

The last dimension examined relates to performance appraisal, which was evaluated using four

attributes. On average, a positive score of 57% is observed, with the level of satisfaction on the three

aspects ranging from 61% to 54%. It is observant that on the four areas, the results are fairly less

positive in respect to: „mutual agreement on performance objectives –with the manager‟, „level of focus

on staff development‟ and „perceived fairness‟.

Fig 3.11: Satisfaction with recognition

3.3 Factors employee driving satisfaction

3.3.1 Factors that underline employee satisfaction

Given the large number of attributes that were available for analysis relative to the sample size (82

variables against a sample of 660), the analytical process to assess satisfaction drivers included Pearson

Correlation, which was first used to identify the attributes that related most strongly to overall

satisfaction. Pearson Correlation isolated 28 variables that depicted coefficient values of 0.45 and above.

Following, Exploratory Factor Analysis using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to

identify service constituents at which satisfaction levels are highest. The purpose of PCA is to reduce

the data by identifying the patterns of correlation between different attributes. The analysis extracted

54

56

59

61

57

4

5

5

6

5

29

28

24

21

25

13

11

12

13

12

0% 100%

Performance appraisal system fairly evaluates staf f performance

Performance appraisals are regular and focused on staf f development

My performance objectives are mutually agreed upon with my manager

My Manager is objective in appraising staf f

Average score



Smart Frontiers 26

three factors (see Table 3.4). The measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) against all attributes was

confirmed at 0.960, with significance level (Bartlets Sphecirity test) found at p = 0.00, which reflects a

good correlation, indicating that the factor analysis is useful with the data.

The three factors extracted collectively covered 23 attributes, which cumulatively explained 68.59% of

the variance in the data. The estimates of the variance in each item were < 0.56. Accordingly, the pattern

of correlation shows that the three factors, in order of importance, can be interpreted as follows:

Factor 1: The leading factor, interpreted as Receptivity and communication, accounted for

28.73% of the variance. This factor constitutes a large set of eleven items that are essentially

related to the openness and affability of the management system.

Factor 2: The second factor, Staff development system accounted for 20.90% of the variance.

This factor comprised seven items that are primarily related to career, training and disciplinary

issues.

Factor 3: This can be interpreted as Alignment of corporate strategies, and accounted for

18.96% of the variance. As seen, this factor was defined by KFS‟s apparent strategic focus on

its core area of business.


Smart Frontiers 27

Table 3.4: Factors that underline employee satisfaction

Factor (% of

variance)

KFS management has created an open, stress free&

comfortable work environment 0.74

Receptivity and communication

(28.73%)

The leadership recognizes and makes use of its employees

abilities and skills 0.70

KFS leadership accountability and transparency while

managing the institution and its resources 0.67

KFS believes in open and honest communication among

staff 0.76

Feedback is always communicated promptly to the KFS

staff 0.75

There is adequate and quick communication between

departments 0.58

The KFS management maintains effective communication

with staff 0.77

The KFS results/decisions are clearly communicated to the

staff 0.67

Good work is recognized by the management and

supervisors at KFS 0.67

Individual initiatives are encouraged and recognized at

KFS 0.66

There is teamwork and team spirit at KFS as a whole 0.75

KFS Leadership has spent effort to train and institute team spirit

0.56

Staff development system

(20.90%)

KFS management always handles staff disciplinary issues transparently and

according to the laid down procedures in the HR Manual

0.69

KFS has a clearly established career path for its entire staff 0.71

KFS has an excellent staff training development plan for all its staff 0.79

KFS has well-established talent management plan 0.70

I am satisfied with terms and conditions of service at KFS

0.66

Our pay package is competitive as compared with other

organizations

0.58

KFS's Vision, Mission, Objectives and Core values are well stated and communicated to

staff by the management

0.82

Alignment of corporate

strategies (18.96%)

The management has made a lot of effort to ensure the staff are aware and understand its

strategic direction

0.77

I believe KFS Vision and Mission are realistic and relevant 0.83

The Leadership of KFS always adhere to scientific principles and professionalism in the

management of KSF and the forestry industry

0.62

The leadership of KFS always encourages teamwork and partnerships 0.64


Smart Frontiers 28

Fig. 3.12 considers the relative contribution of factors to overall satisfaction. It is seen that across the

three factors, „Receptivity and communication‟ accounts for the highest share of employee satisfaction –

42%. The other two factors – „staff development system‟ and „alignment of corporate strategies‟

account for 30% and 28% of employee satisfaction respectively.

Fig. 3.12: Contribution of factors to satisfaction

3.4 Promise of loyalty

3.4.1 Intent to continue working with KFS

One measure used to assess employee “promise of loyalty” was by asking participants to rate their

agreeability, on a 5-point scale, with the statement: “I would not leave KFS even if I got a better paying

job.” For this analysis, in order to more precisely evaluate employee promise of loyalty, participants are

grouped into five categories based on their responses, as follows:

Scale 5 (strongly agree): Not seeking

Scale 4 (somewhat agree): Reluctant

Scale 3 (neither/DK): Undecided

Scale 2 (somewhat disagree): Passively seeking

Scale 1 (strongly disagree): Actively seeking

Looking first at the overall figures, the results suggest modest predisposition among the employees to

look for another job. As shown in Figure 3.13, it is apparent that, based on combined proportions for

those „actively seeking‟ and „passively seeking‟, about one-third of the employees (41%) are inclined to

Receptivity &

communication,

42%

Staff

development system , 30%

Alignment of

corporate

strategies, 28%


Smart Frontiers 29

look for another job. Conversely, based on those who responded “strongly disagree”, and therefore

suggesting they are not seeking another job, it is possible to infer that overall employee promise of

loyalty (i.e. with „certainty‟) stands at about one-third (34%). On the other hand, looking at the

„reluctant‟ proportion (i.e. based on the “somewhat disagree” response), 12% are likely to positively

consider a good opportunity. Just (4%) remain unsure.

Fig. 3.13: Overall inclination to look for another job

3.4.2 Willingness to continue working at same facility/station

Next, assessment of promise of loyalty (at the Facility/Station level) was measured on the basis of

willingness to continue working at same facility/station. Participants were asked to rate their

agreeability, on a 5-point scale, with the statement: “I would like to continue working at this station.”

Here, participants‟ responses have been grouped into three categories to reflect different levels of

willingness to continue working in the station, as depicted below:

Scale 4 & 5 (strongly/somewhat agree): Willing to continue working at same station

Scale 3 (neither): Undecided

Scale 1 & 2 (strongly/somewhat disagree): Not willing to continue working at same station

Portrayed thus, the results show that slightly over half (55%) of the employees are willing to continue

working at their current stations, while just below one-third (29%) show unwillingness to that regard.

The results are displayed in Figure 3.14 below.

Not seeking, 34

Reluctant, 12Undecided, 4

Passively seeking, 12

Actively seeking, 29

DK/NR, 9


Smart Frontiers 30

Fig. 3.14: Overall willingness to continue working at the same station

3.4.3 Willingness to recommend KFS as a good place to work in

For a final measure of employee promise of loyalty, participants were asked to rate their willingness to

recommend KFS “as a good place to work in”. In similar vein, they were asked to rate their agreeability,

on a 5-point scale, with the statement: “I would recommend the KFS as a good place to work in”.

Again, for the purpose of analysis, participants‟ responses are grouped into three categories to reflect

willingness to recommend KFS. This illustrated below:

Scale 4 & 5 (strongly/somewhat agree): Would recommend

Scale 3 (neither): Undecided

Scale 1 & 2 (strongly/somewhat disagree): Would not recommend

As observed in Figure 3.15, the results suggest that, overall, about two-thirds (62%) of the employees

would be willing to recommend KFS as a good place to work in. Just below one-quarter (23%) would

be unwilling to do so, while 6% were undecided or unsure. Roughly one-tenth (9%) could not provide a

comment.

Not willing to continue working

at same

station, 29%

Undecided, 9%

Willing to continue working

at same

station, 55%

DK/NR, 7%


Smart Frontiers 31

Fig. 3.15: Overall willingness to recommend KFS as a good place to work in

3.5 Outlook on change in KFS over time

3.5.1 Employee perceptions of improvements over time

To examine perceptions of improvement over time, participants were asked to rate their agreeability, on

a 5-point scale, with the statement: “Overall, I feel things have changed for the better at KFS”. To

evaluate employee perceptions to that regard, responses are grouped into three categories as illustrated:

Scale 4 & 5 (strongly/somewhat agree): Changed for better

Scale 3 (neither): Not sure

Scale 1 & 2 (strongly/somewhat disagree): Changed for worse

As displayed in Figure 3.16, it is observed that about half of participants (57%) had a positive view, and

conversely just above one-quarter (26%) being unequivocally negative.

Fig. 3.16: Perceptions of change over time

Would not recommend,

23%

Undecided, 6%

Would recommend,

62%

DK/NR, 9%

Changed for worse, 26

Not sure, 6

Changed for better, 57

DK/NR, 11


Smart Frontiers 32

3.5.2 Suggestions for improvement

Providing further opportunity for the participants to offer suggestions for improvement on the job and

work environment dimensions as a whole, the comments obtained covered a broad range, with the

highest number pointing to „work overload concern‟, reflected in the „need to employ more staff,

particularly rangers (26%), followed by resource and financing concerns (11%). Other notable mention

was „opportunities for staff training and development‟ (6%).

Table 3.5: Suggestions for improvement

%

Need to employ more staff, particularly rangers 26

Address distribution of budgeting and resources 11

Increase opportunities for staff training and development 6

Allow room for staff input into management issues 4

Improve working conditions, particularly with regard working space 4

Address communication 3

Improve infrastructure, particularly with regard to housing 2


Smart Frontiers 33

Conclusion

In looking back at selected findings in this Report, it is first useful to consider the ESI and how this has

changed over time. Depicting ESI of 61.34 points, these results suggest relatively high level of approval

by the employees on the services provided by KFS.

Looking at the dimension depicting the widest gaps in satisfaction levels, the results call attention to

three areas, namely: „relationship with co-workers‟, „remuneration and benefits‟ and „recruitment and

promotion practices‟, these are dimensions that are of immediate interest to employees, and addressing

pockets of disquiet is urgent in order to improve employee satisfaction levels.

On the other hand, on the basis of PCA, the data does indicate a number of strengths, these being the

platforms on which employee satisfaction is grounded. As noted, employee satisfaction congregates

around the factors of „Receptivity and communication‟, „Staff development system‟ and „Alignment of

corporate strategies‟. However, even though these constitute the satisfaction drivers, what is of relative

concern is that they appear to drive satisfaction with relatively lower scores in terms of proportions that

showed satisfaction with the various aspects under these dimensions. Although not a priority currently,

it is observed that, given their level of importance to the employees, these are areas of long-term interest

to the employees, and addressing pockets of disquiet is useful to prevent potential lapse in employee

satisfaction.

Finally, an important indicator in this assessment is that of perceptions of change. It is commendable

that a modest proportion view KFS in positive terms. This is noticeable by 57% (overall) who thought

that “things have changed for the better”, and a 62% proportion who showed willingness to recommend

KFS “as a good place to work in”. This is notwithstanding the fact that about one-third of the employees

(34%) showed inclination to look for another job.


Smart Frontiers 34

Recommendations

On the basis of the survey findings, the following are suggested as ways to address areas where there are

gaps in service delivery. It is important to emphasize that the suggestions highlighted are based on those

elements where employees‟ expectations are highest.

5. Co-worker relations: Enhance co-worker relations through intra and inter-departmental social

activities among the staff

6. Training and development: Address staff training and development issues, with specific focus

on the following two areas: first, is the need to provide information on staff training

opportunities to build confidence on the nomination procedures; second, staff should provide

input into areas where they are in need of training,

7. Promotions: The Human Resource function needs to provide clear specifications of the staff

grading system and streamline staff promotion system

8. Communication: Although communication does not expressly emerge as an area of concern,

there is need to map out specific corporate measures that address negative perceptions,

particularly concerning recruitment and promotion, corruption and so on

employee satisfaction survey - … satisfaction … · kfs employee satisfaction survey - 2012...

Documents