statewide employee engagement survey - illinois · 2017-03-10 · this report details the results...

Statewide Employee Engagement Survey

2016

| 2

IntroductionThis report details the results of the State of Illinois’ 2nd annual Employee Engagement Survey. Employees provided input on their work environment, training opportunities, their trust and confidence in agency leadership, and their overall job satisfaction.

Agencies have already begun taking steps to address issues raised in the 2015 Employee Engagement Survey. These include launching expanded training opportunities, improving office facilities, and implementing programs that will help better cultivate and reward employee creativity, such as merit bonuses and gain sharing.

It is the State’s hope to continue to use employees’ feedback to improve results for both taxpayers and employees. Hopefully, these successes will be reflected in improved scores from surveyed employees in future surveys.

In addition to the results contained in this statewide report, each agency will receive its own agency-specific report. These reports will help directors identify pain points and bright spots within their agency. Many employees also supplemented their ratings with written feedback to provide directors with suggestions of how processes might be improved. Directors will be reviewing these suggestions and implementing them where practical.

| 3

12,000+ Employees Participated with a Median Response Rate of 30%Response Rate by Agency

Aging, Department on 55% Insurance, Department of 51%Agriculture 25% Juvenile Justice 20%Capital Development Board 30% Labor Relations Board 35%Central Management Services 45% Labor 41%Children and Family Services 30% Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board 26%Commerce and Economic Opportunity 62% Liquor Control Commission 29%Commerce Commission, Illinois 25% Lottery, Illinois 29%Corrections 16% Management and Budget, Office of 22%Criminal Justice Information Authority 40% Natural Resources 30%Educational Labor Relations, Board of 9% Pollution Control Board 58%Emergency Management Agency 36% Power Agency, Illinois 40%Employment Security 33% Prisoner Review Board, Illinois 38%Environmental Protection Agency 29% Property Tax Appeal Board 27%Financial and Professional Regulation 45% Public Health 40%Gaming Board, Illinois 21% Revenue 35%Guardianship and Advocacy Commission 23% State Fire Marshal 54%Healthcare and Family Services 45% State Police, Illinois 28%Higher Education, Board of 10% State Retirement Systems 23%Historic Preservation Agency 31% Student Assistance Commission, Illinois 33%Human Rights Commission 57% Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission 100%Human Rights 64% Transportation 25%Human Services 20% Veterans Affairs 15%Innovation and Technology 55% Workers' Compensation Commission, Illinois 32%

Median Response Rate for All Agencies 30%

| 4

6.20 6.63 6.35 5.98 6.22 6.286.006.62 6.31

5.64 5.58 6.03

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I would recommend theState of IL as a good

place to work.

My work provides mewith a feeling ofaccomplishment.

My talents are used wellin my workplace.

The workload of State ofIllinois employees is

manageable.

State of Illinoisemployees are

adequately compensatedfor their work.

Retention andSatisfaction Composite

2015 2016

• The following slides look at statewide responses on individual groups of questions, as well as composite scores for each subject category.

• Bars represent the average score for all employees for a given question. A score of 9 or 10 indicates that an employee “strongly agrees” with the statement. A score of 0 or 1 indicates that an employee “strongly disagrees” with the statement.

• The brackets on the average bars show the statewide distribution for a given question or category. 25 percent of individual respondents scored at or above the top of the bracket, and 25 percent of individual respondents scored at or below the bottom of the bracket. This allows the State to identify areas where large numbers of employees are either very satisfied or very dissatisfied.

Overview: State Performance by Subject Category

25% of responses

were below 5 for this

question.

25% of responses

were above 9 for this

question.

Bars with a diagonal

pattern refer to composite

scores.

| 5

Statewide Average by Subject Category

*Brackets refer to the statewide quartile distribution for a given question or composite. 25% of respondents scored at or above the top of the bracket, and 25% of respondents scored at or below the bottom of the bracket.*

• Responses were categorized by subject, and a “composite” average score was calculated for each category. For example, the composite score associated with “Retention and Satisfaction” is an average of the employee scores for all questions related to that subject.

• The 2016 Employee Engagement Survey proved insightful for identifying areas of strength the State can build on. Comparing scores between 2015 and 2016, one can see that employees are increasingly satisfied with their work units and leadership.

• The survey was also very insightful for identifying areas that continue to need further improvement. These areas include better retention of employees, providing better training opportunities, and providing more effective worker evaluations. The State has identified these as high priority areas and is devoting attention to improving them.

6.285.43

6.555.42

7.06

5.586.40

5.666.035.29

6.55

5.32

6.99

5.726.39

5.72

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Retention andSatisfaction

TalentDevelopment

Work Environment WorkerEvaluations

CustomerInteractions

Work Unit Supervision Leadership

2015 2016

| 6


• This category focused on how satisfied employees are working at the State of Illinois. Questions addressed employees’ job satisfaction, workload, and fulfillment.

• Employees reported relatively strong feelings of accomplishment working at the State for the second year in a row. This makesense – our employees provide vital services to millions of people every day. Whether, it’s helping direct citizens to unemployment services or ensuring that taxpayers receive their tax returns in a timely manner, State of Illinois employees’ matter.

• Employees reported feelings of workload being potentially unmanageable and expressed desire for more adequate compensation. The State is working to address these concerns through programs such as expanded merit compensation and various streamlining efforts.

Retention and Satisfaction: State Employees Report Strong Feelings of Accomplishment Serving Citizens of Illinois

6.20 6.63 6.35 5.98 6.22 6.286.006.62 6.31

5.64 5.58 6.03

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I would recommend theState of IL as a good

place to work.

My work provides mewith a feeling ofaccomplishment.

My talents are used wellin my workplace.

The workload of State ofIllinois employees is

manageable.


adequately compensatedfor their work.

Retention andSatisfaction Composite

2015 2016

| 7


• This category focused on employees’ opinions of their supervisors. Questions asked about employee input, trust, skills development, and supervisor leadership style.

• Supervisor scores were consistent across all areas. This suggests employees remain confident in their supervisors’ capabilities. The State is building on this foundation through its efforts to increase training for middle management employees.

• Respondents had a wide range of views about supervisor decision making and skill development. 25 percent of respondents reported scores of 4 or lower, and 25 percent of respondents reported scores of 9 or higher for both questions.

My Supervisor: Employees’ Views Toward Supervisors Are Positive, Particularly in Areas of Trust and Diversity

5.856.74

6.046.89 6.47 6.40

5.876.74

5.996.87 6.46 6.39

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

My supervisorsfrequently seek input to

help their decisionmaking.

My supervisors aretrustworthy and capable.

My supervisors help medevelop the skills to excel

at my job.

My supervisors work wellwith employees of

different backgrounds.

My supervisor leads byexample.

Supervision Composite

2015 2016

| 8


Customer Interactions: Employees Believe Taxpayers Are Well-Served by the State

• This category focused on employees’ opinions about their customer interactions. Questions asked about serving customer needs, understanding customer needs, and overall customer satisfaction.

• Employees believe citizens are served well by the State with 25 percent of employees strongly agreeing with questions in this category. Scores did decrease in several areas, but overall customer interactions remain a strong point for the State.

• Employees reported lower scores for how objective success is measured, suggesting the State’s performance metrics need further improvement. To address this, leaders across agencies have begun working to identify customer service best practices, as well as increasing participation in Rapid Results initiatives.

7.17 7.46 6.98 6.65 7.067.11 7.35 6.98 6.51 6.99

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

State of Illinois employeesunderstand their customers'

needs.

State of Illinois employeesunderstand who their

customer is.

State of Illinois employees arecommitted to customer

satisfaction.

State of Illinois employees canobjectively measure whetherthey are successful in meeting

their customer's needs.

Customer InteractionsComposite

2015 2016

| 9

Talent Development: Employees Report Mentorship as Area of Strength for State


• This category focused on whether the State is giving employees necessary skills to excel. Questions addressed mentoring, training opportunities, and communication of training needs.

• Employees reported mentorship as an area of strength for the State with 25 percent of employees strongly agreeing with the statement “I have one or more co-workers whom I view as mentors”.

• Employees did however report the need for more sufficient training opportunities, with 25 percent strongly disagreeing with the statement that “employees are given sufficient training to excel at their job”. The State has begun efforts to improve this with examples including expanding management training opportunities and shifting focus to the Statewide Training Clearinghouse.

5.875.26 5.14

5.435.885.22

4.79 5.29

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I have one or more co-workers whomI view as mentors.

My training needs are identified andcommunicated to me.

State of Illinois employees are givensufficient training to excel at their job.

Talent Development Composite

2015 2016

| 10


Work Environment: Employees Feel Positively About Their Relationships with Co-Workers but Identify Room for Improvement in Workplace Conditions

• This category focused on employees’ opinions on their work environment. Questions asked about relationships with colleagues,workplace atmosphere, and safety.

• Employees exhibited a relatively high level of satisfaction with their work environment in both 2015 and 2016 with 25 percent of employees reporting a 9 or above in all areas except for physical conditions.

• Physical conditions improved from 2015 to 2016 but remain a concern for employees. In 2016, the State launched efforts to move out of the Thompson Center, a greatly outdated facility needing millions of dollars in repairs. This remains a great challenge but should provide employees with better working conditions as the transition progresses.

5.597.10 6.76 6.88 6.68 6.45 6.39 6.55

5.667.02 6.61 6.90 6.76 6.43 6.49 6.55

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Physical conditionsat my workplace

(noise,temperature, etc)are satisfactory.


highly responsiveto the needs of our

customers.

State of Illinoisemployees have astrong work ethic.

My co-workers arerespectful to their

colleagues.

My workenvironment isinclusive and

individualdifferences are

respected.

I feel comfortableexpressing my

views to my co-workers and

supervisors, evenwhen those viewsare different fromthose around me.

Employeesgenerally feel safefrom health and

safety risks in theworkplace.

Work EnvironmentComposite

2015 2016

| 11


• This category focused on employees' opinions regarding evaluation processes. Questions asked about the fairness of evaluations,goal setting, setting expectations, and processes related to both reward and discipline.

• Supervisors setting clear expectations and goals remains an area of strength for worker evaluations with 25 percent of employeesstrongly agreeing with the statements related to these.

• Employees reported higher levels of satisfaction for rewarding creativity and innovation and merit-based compensation, but these areas remain troublesome. Improvements may be attributable to the expansion of improvement programs, such as gain sharing, that utilize a bottom up approach to fix some of the state’s toughest operational problems.

Worker Evaluations: Employees Identify Promotions, Performance, and Rewarding Creativity as Areas Needing Improvement

6.80 6.74 6.43 6.43

3.30

4.87

3.38

5.426.70 6.50 6.26 6.14

3.31

4.75

3.56

5.32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

My supervisor setsclear expectations

and goals inrelation to my job

function.

I understand whatI have to do to berated at different

performance levelson my formalevaluations.

My supervisorprovides specific,

actionablefeedback thatallows me to

improve over time.

Evaluations aredone in a fair,

objective manner.

Promotions andcompensation are

based on merit.

My work unitsupervisoradequately

addresses poorperformers who

cannot or will notimprove.

My agencyrewards creativity

and innovation.

WorkerEvaluationsComposite

2015 2016

| 12


• This category focused on employees’ opinions about their work unit. Questions asked about teamwork, recruiting, rewards, empowerment, and technology.

• Work unit satisfaction had the largest score increase of all categories. This was driven by employees feeling more empowered toimprove work processes and feeling more incentivized to improve their performance.

• Teamwork continues to be a strong point for the State with 25 percent of employees strongly agreeing that their work unit will work together to achieve results. The State has begun efforts to support collaboration amongst employees, most notably with the creation of the pilot Innovation Center in the Department of Innovation and Technology.

My Work Unit: Employees Report Strong Teamwork but Need for Further Improvement on Rewarding and Empowering Employees

7.76 5.51

4.414.94

5.28

5.58

7.84

5.73 4.625.15

5.23

5.72

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

If necessary, my workunit will work together

to get things done.

My work unit recruitspeople with the right

skills for their job.

My work unit rewardsgood performance in a

meaningful way.

Employees feelpersonally empowered

to improve workprocesses.

My team has the righttools and technology to

do an effective job.

Work Unit Composite

2015 2016

| 13

Leadership: Employees Report Strong Goal Setting by Leaders but Need for Greater Trust and Motivation from Leaders

• This category focused on employees’ opinions about leadership. Questions asked about trust, respect, and motivation in regard to their leaders.

• Compared to 2015, employees felt more positively about the ability of their agency leaders to build trust, lead by example, and motivate employees, with score increases in these areas.

• On the issue of leadership’s ability to motivate workers, scores varied with 25 percent of employees scoring8 or higher and 25 percent of employees scoring 2 or lower. The State has begun efforts to improve this by launching leadership training courses through the Rapid Results Program and launching an Employee Newsletter.


5.24 5.36 5.44 7.44 5.51

4.94 5.66

5.33 5.48 5.53 7.39 5.56

5.00 5.72

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

My co-workers trustthe leaders of our

division.

Division leaders aregoing in the right

direction.

My division leaderslead by example.

I understand how myjob contributes to the

larger goals of mydivision, agency, and

state.

My co-workersrespect our agency's

senior leaders.

My agency's leadersare able to motivate

employees.

LeadershipComposite

2015 2016

| 14

Overview: Agency Performance Comparison

Median of Agency Averages for Category

Lower Quartile of Agency Averages for Category

Upper Quartile of Agency Averages for Category

• Questions were grouped by subject and a “composite” average score was calculated for each subject category. For example, the composite score associated with “Retention and Satisfaction” is an average of the employee scores for all questions related to that subject.

• Color coding in the following slides is based on the average scores for agencies with 200+ responses. Agencies in the bottom 25 percent of all agencies for a given question category are identified in red. Agencies in the top 25 percent of all agencies are identified in blue.

• Average scores and their distribution varied for each category. For example, a score of 6 may put an agency in the bottom 25 percent for “Customer Interactions” questions, but in the top 25 percent for “Talent Development” questions.

| 15

*Color coding is based on average scores for agencies with over 200 responses. The lower quartile reflects the score that 25% of agencies with over 200 responses were at or below. The upper quartile reflects the score that 25% of agencies with over 200 responses were at or above.*

Agency Averages by Question CategoryRetention and

SatisfactionTalent

DevelopmentWork

EnvironmentWorker

EvaluationsCustomer

InteractionsWork Unit Supervision Leadership

Agency Average

Aging, Department on 7.08 6.17 7.68 6.32 7.89 7.25 7.72 6.92 7.13Agriculture 5.69 4.98 7.03 5.49 7.39 5.54 6.60 5.96 6.08Arts Council 4.30 4.39 6.64 5.46 8.25 6.00 6.20 5.60 5.85Capital Development Board 7.48 6.39 7.20 6.54 8.23 6.93 7.81 7.21 7.22Central Management Services 6.68 5.36 7.08 6.01 7.36 6.42 7.00 6.62 6.57Children and Family Services 5.81 5.45 6.81 5.42 7.44 6.01 6.83 5.88 6.21Civil Service Commission, Illinois 5.69 4.67 5.90 5.55 7.17 6.13 6.37 5.72 5.90Commerce and Economic Opportunity 6.45 5.14 6.99 6.15 7.36 6.30 7.28 6.70 6.54Commerce Commission, Illinois 6.44 5.30 7.64 6.15 7.57 6.72 7.74 7.04 6.82Corrections 5.42 5.09 5.74 4.99 5.95 5.17 5.97 4.92 5.40Criminal Justice Information Authority 6.45 5.67 7.10 6.08 6.76 6.28 7.14 6.77 6.53Deaf and Hard of Hearing Commission 5.10 5.83 7.43 7.38 8.92 8.80 8.00 9.50 7.62Developmental Disabilities, Council on 6.28 5.79 6.77 6.10 7.88 5.94 6.32 5.37 6.31Educational Labor Relations, Board of 8.90 8.83 9.00 9.14 9.00 8.60 9.40 9.42 9.04Emergency Management Agency 5.78 4.97 7.48 5.57 7.53 6.45 6.87 6.23 6.36Employment Security 6.35 4.63 6.67 4.93 7.23 5.41 5.98 5.64 5.85Environmental Protection Agency 5.96 4.86 6.98 5.25 7.39 5.72 6.65 6.03 6.11Financial and Professional Regulation 5.50 4.40 6.00 4.78 6.76 4.84 5.73 4.99 5.38Gaming Board, Illinois 6.41 5.31 7.22 5.55 7.12 6.15 6.32 6.22 6.29Guardianship and Advocacy Commission 6.00 5.40 7.21 6.23 7.83 5.73 7.50 6.71 6.58Healthcare and Family Services 6.11 5.37 6.52 5.19 6.99 5.58 6.20 5.63 5.95Higher Education, Board of 4.80 5.08 6.54 3.95 5.58 4.27 4.47 4.17 4.86Historic Preservation Agency 6.42 5.04 7.21 5.12 6.98 5.74 6.07 6.31 6.11Human Rights Commission 5.97 6.28 6.29 6.12 7.00 5.63 7.53 6.42 6.40Human Rights 5.93 5.40 6.38 5.45 6.75 5.46 6.28 5.27 5.86Human Services 5.93 5.29 6.34 5.09 7.16 5.46 6.01 5.51 5.85Innovation and Technology 6.09 4.60 6.86 5.39 7.03 5.94 6.48 5.83 6.03

| 16

Agency Averages by Question CategoryRetention and

SatisfactionTalent

DevelopmentWork

EnvironmentWorker

EvaluationsCustomer

InteractionsWork Unit Supervision Leadership

Agency Average

Insurance Department of 6.38 5.48 7.03 5.76 7.48 6.42 7.13 6.63 6.54Juvenile Justice 6.08 5.45 5.73 5.12 6.01 5.40 5.88 4.70 5.55Labor Relations Board 6.13 5.50 8.64 6.71 7.45 8.04 9.05 9.21 7.59Labor 6.32 5.47 7.72 6.30 8.07 6.66 7.36 6.92 6.85Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board

5.55 4.17 4.21 4.61 5.06 4.40 5.30 5.83 4.89

Liquor Control Commission 6.60 5.42 7.43 7.95 8.58 8.40 8.40 9.00 7.72Lottery, Illinois 6.82 5.97 7.18 6.26 7.63 6.36 6.78 6.01 6.63Management and Budget, Office of 6.51 6.86 6.80 6.26 7.71 7.03 7.83 7.64 7.08Medical District Commission 8.40 5.33 5.29 5.57 5.00 5.00Natural Resources 6.17 5.42 7.37 5.69 7.30 6.22 7.02 6.19 6.42Other (please specify) 6.00 5.68 6.77 5.96 6.57 6.53 7.22 6.66 6.42Pollution Control Board 6.52 6.03 6.93 7.23 6.95 7.10 7.78 7.87 7.05Power Agency, Illinois 6.80 6.33 6.86 6.00 5.00 9.60 9.60 10.00 7.52Prisoner Review Board, Illinois 7.71 8.57 8.08 8.41 7.93 8.00 8.97 8.21 8.24Property Tax Appeal Board 7.11 7.43 7.78 7.88 9.11 8.00 8.17 7.83 7.91Public Health 6.35 5.69 7.11 5.76 7.60 5.98 6.94 6.28 6.46Racing Board, Illinois 5.62 4.03 5.80 4.84 5.94 5.18 5.45 4.92 5.22Revenue 6.27 5.59 6.82 5.80 7.22 5.93 6.92 6.36 6.36State Fire Marshal 7.27 6.64 7.80 6.85 8.07 7.15 7.93 7.56 7.41State Police, Illinois 6.11 5.49 6.75 5.49 7.04 5.88 6.24 5.50 6.06State Retirement Systems 6.63 6.41 7.61 6.27 7.90 6.36 6.84 7.22 6.91Student Assistance Commission, Illinois 6.42 5.94 7.25 6.20 7.60 6.79 7.24 6.86 6.79Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission 4.70 0.17 5.64 2.71 6.75 2.00 3.10 5.00 3.76Transportation 6.30 5.19 6.72 5.01 6.98 5.80 6.43 5.84 6.03Veterans Affairs 6.36 5.39 6.73 5.64 7.57 5.90 6.45 5.85 6.23Volunteerism & Community Service 8.40 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 9.80Workers' Compensation Commission 7.71 6.97 7.05 6.12 7.51 6.89 7.54 7.79 7.20Statewide Average 6.03 5.29 6.55 5.32 6.99 5.72 6.39 5.72 6.00

*Color coding is based on average scores for agencies with over 200 responses. The lower quartile reflects the score that 25% of agencies with over 200 responses were at or below. The upper quartile reflects the score that 25% of agencies with over 200 responses were at or above.*

| 17

Overview: Comparing Responses by Demographic

Midpoint = 5.5

Low Benchmark = 4.0 High Benchmark = 7.0

• Unlike the previous section that compared performance between agencies, this section focuses on disparities between different employee demographics.

• The heat map coloring used here is based on standardized benchmarks of 4 (low), 5.5 (midpoint), and 7 (high). These absolute benchmarks allow the State to assess statewide performance across different subjects for different demographics.

• Areas of dark green and dark orange are the State’s areas of strength and weakness respectively.

| 18

Average Scores by Demographic

*Heat maps coloring based on standardized benchmarks of 4 (low), 5.5 (midpoint), and 7 (high).*

DemographicRetention

and Satisfaction

Talent Development

Work Environment

Worker Evaluations

Customer Interactions

Work Unit Supervision Leadership Overall

Average by Gender

Female 6.14 5.47 6.47 5.33 7.11 5.75 6.38 5.79 6.05

Male 6.13 5.35 6.73 5.47 6.97 5.83 6.54 5.82 6.10

Average by Race and Ethnicity

American Indian or Alaska Native

5.49 4.33 5.94 4.28 6.36 4.97 5.85 5.23 5.31

Asian Indian 6.31 5.37 6.85 5.96 7.28 6.14 6.88 6.87 6.46

Black/African American 6.09 5.27 6.36 5.24 7.11 5.76 6.09 5.66 5.95

Chinese 6.58 5.41 6.65 6.34 7.57 5.94 7.35 6.98 6.60

Filipino 6.72 6.06 6.24 5.37 7.56 5.80 5.65 5.47 6.11

Guamanian or Chamorro 3.80 1.78 4.52 3.52 7.13 2.30 3.50 1.83 3.55

Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish Origin

6.36 5.44 6.59 5.42 7.15 5.73 6.35 6.04 6.13

Japanese 5.30 4.44 6.40 5.36 6.29 4.87 5.87 4.33 5.36

Korean 5.98 5.59 6.85 6.10 7.94 6.23 6.31 6.18 6.40

Native Hawaiian 5.55 6.17 7.04 5.82 7.88 7.30 8.20 6.13 6.76

Other (please specify) 5.51 4.67 6.29 4.78 6.97 5.30 5.74 5.09 5.54

Other Pacific Islander 6.77 5.48 6.43 5.61 7.05 5.70 5.27 5.77 6.01

Samoan 3.57 3.67 5.00 3.61 5.21 3.71 5.00 3.05 4.10

Vietnamese 6.35 7.08 7.32 6.57 8.25 6.70 6.65 5.33 6.78

White 6.15 5.46 6.65 5.44 7.01 5.81 6.54 5.82 6.11

Statewide Average 6.03 5.29 6.55 5.32 6.99 5.72 6.39 5.72 6.00

| 19

Average Scores by Demographic

*Heat maps coloring based on standardized benchmarks of 4 (low), 5.5 (midpoint), and 7 (high).*

DemographicRetention and

SatisfactionTalent

DevelopmentWork

EnvironmentWorker

EvaluationsCustomer

InteractionsWork Unit Supervision Leadership Overall

Average by Tenure

0-2 years 6.62 6.25 6.98 6.05 7.14 6.46 7.19 6.72 6.67

15+ years 5.91 5.01 6.49 5.19 6.99 5.62 6.25 5.50 5.87

2-5 years 5.98 5.52 6.53 5.28 6.95 5.65 6.43 5.77 6.02

5-15 years 5.99 5.25 6.47 5.23 6.93 5.57 6.23 5.62 5.91

Average by Union Status

Fair share employee 6.23 5.29 6.54 5.23 6.78 5.62 6.44 6.01 6.02

None of the above 6.46 5.72 6.98 5.86 6.99 6.39 7.12 6.77 6.53

Non-union supervisor 6.53 5.49 6.90 5.80 6.85 6.17 7.21 6.60 6.44

Union member 5.88 5.21 6.45 5.19 7.03 5.58 6.17 5.42 5.87

Statewide Average 6.03 5.29 6.55 5.32 6.99 5.72 6.39 5.72 6.00

statewide employee engagement survey - illinois · 2017-03-10 · this report details the results...

Documents