Employee Survey Results - HR Award
Doc. Ing. Petr Pirožek, Ph.D. a Mgr. Petra Ježová – October 2020
1
2
HR Award
̶ A prestigious award (HR Excellence in Research logo) given by the
European Commission research institutions that implement Human
Resources Strategy for Researchers (HRS4R) in their personnel policies.
̶ So far 500+ European research organizations and more than 20 in
the Czech Republic recieved this award.
3
HR Award – activities
̶ 12/2019 – endorsement of the Charter and the Code principles
̶ 01-02/2020 – 4x meetings of HR Award Working group
̶ 02-03/2020 – questionnaire survey
̶ 06-07/2020 – focus groups
̶ 08/2020 – preparation of GAP analysis and OTM-R checklist
̶ 09/2020 – draft of Action plan
̶ (12/2020 – publication of documents on the faculty website)
4
4 areas of HR Award
I. Ethical and professional
aspects
II. Recruitment and selection
III. Working conditions and
social security
IV. Training and development
5
Questionnaire survey – data collection
Data collection period 24. 2. – 15. 3. 2020
Methodology of data collection On-line
Total number of completed questionnaires 128
Total number of invited employees 221
Response rate 58 %
Objectives
̶ Obtain information on the current state and needs of researchers and academics
̶ Find out the fulfillment of the principles of the Charter and the Code at the
̶ Basis for the preparation of GAP analysis and Action Plan
Structure of the questionairre
̶ 67 questions divided into 6 sections
Respondents
̶ All researchers, including Ph.D. students
̶ R1 - doctoral student, assistant professor, researcher I
̶ R2 - assistant professor, researcher II
̶ R3 - associate professor, researcher III
̶ R4 - professor
6
7
Respondents – by category and gender
R1 R2 R3_4
Invited 94 80 47
Completed 38 62 28
% of answers obtained 40 % 78 % 60 %
Women were more likely to be involved in the survey.
67,4
32,6
62,3
37,7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
men women
Proportion of men and women in the basic
sample and in the survey
basic sample
survey
Strenghts - summary
I. Working conditions
̶ 88% of respondents state that working conditions allow them to reconcile work and family life
̶ 70% of employees consider wage conditions to be adequate to their expectations - most in position R3_R4 (93%)
̶ 72% of respondents state that students have the opportunity to maintain regular contacts with their tutors
II. Recruitment, selection, development and evaluation of employees
̶ 69% of respondents state that the process of recruiting staff is open to applicants from the Czech Republic and abroad (62%)
̶ 77% of respondents who have passed the selection procedure at the FEA MU in the last 3 years perceive that they have received
sufficient information within the selection procedure
̶ 69% of respondents believe that their workplace approaches the recruitment and selection of new employees transparently
̶ 89% of respondents have been evaluated in the last three years, most of them are well acquainted with the system and received sufficient
feedback within the evaluation (82%)
̶ 80% of respondents perceive that MU provides them with the possibility of professional training for activities related to teaching and
education
8
Strenghts - summary
IV. Professional approach
̶ 72% of respondents perceive that project support in the workplace works
̶ 2/3 of respondents state that they are sufficiently informed about the rules of protection and processing of personal data and have easily
accessible information regarding the safety of work procedures
IV. Freedom and ethics of research
̶ Almost 2/3 of employees feel sufficiently familiar with the tools to ensure the ethical aspects of scientific work and 62% perceive these
tools as sufficient
V. Commercial use and intellectual property
̶ Almost 2/3 of employees state that they have sufficient legal protection of intellectual property as the author of scientific results
VI. Discrimination and equal treatment
̶ More than half of respondents state that MU has sufficient tools to prevent discrimination
9
10
I. Working conditions
Areas for improvement
̶ 50% of employees perceive excessive burden on teaching and its insufficient consideration in remuneration (38.4%)
̶ 51% of employees report an excessive administrative burden, which does not allow them to implement research plans
̶ 50% of women feel that they are not recognized as members of the researchers' professional group
̶ 31% of employees perceive the work environment as insufficiently stimulating to achieve scientific performance
̶ 28% of employees state that teaching is not considered a full-fledged part of the academic's work
̶ Wage conditions are perceived as inadequate in relation to expectations by 37% of employees in positions R1 and R2
̶ 43% of employees have a negative perception of fixed-term contracts, including their repeated renewal
̶ 59% of staff say that there is no clearly identified person to whom researchers can turn at the beginning of their careers
̶ 32% of employees perceive that pedagogical performance is not sufficiently reflected in the evaluation - R1 (50%)
̶ 36% of staff say that experienced researchers do not share their knowledge and experience with others as part of their role
̶ 1/3 of employee's state that researchers do not constantly strive to develop their knowledge, abilities and skills - a group of 5-10 years
at ESF MU (63%)
11
II. Recruitment, evaluation and development of employees
Areas for improvement
̶ 34% of employees state that the recruitment process does not arouse the sufficient interest of suitable candidates
and is not comparable with abroad (28%)
̶ 33% of employees in R2 position state that the workplace does not approach the recruitment and selection of
employees transparently
̶ Almost half of the workers believe that mobility is not sufficiently considered during selection procedure:
• interdisciplinary (49%)
• institutional within the Czech Republic (47%)
• sectoral (44%) and virtual (40%)
̶ A significant number of staff state that the selection criteria bellow are not sufficiently considered:
• ability to disseminate and popularize scientific knowledge (61%)
• degree of practice outside the academia (55%) - R2 (64%) and R3_4 (64%)
• ability to work in a team (43%)
̶ 39% of employees perceive support in the area of continuous education and development as insufficient, and 33% of
employees in the area of career growth
III. Professional approach
Areas for improvement
̶ Employees report that they lack information or are not sufficiently familiar with:
• strategic documents of MU and faculty (42%)
• procedures and processes that allow a smooth course of scientific work (41%)
• project management and administration (45%) and project contracts (36%)
• MU internal regulations (40%)
• how to file a complaint and appeal about working conditions and rights (44%)
12
IV. Freedom and ethics of research
Areas for improvement
̶ 31% of employees state that the research is completely or significantly limited by the availability of suitable
collaborators (including potential ones) - R2 (62.5%) and R3_4 (69.2%)
̶ 50% of employees say that in the last three years they have encountered unethical behaviour in the scientific work of
their colleagues, which did not concern them personally. 22% of respondents were personally affected by unethical
behaviour
̶ 35% of employees state that the result indicates an author who does not participate in it
̶ Employees also cite the volume of available funds and the approach of the faculty management to research as
factors that limit research to a greater or lesser extent
13
V. Commercial use and intellectual property
VI. Discrimination and equal treatment
Areas for improvement
̶ Staff lack information or have no personal experience with services and departments supporting research
̶ 46% of respondents have no experience with CTT (Center for Technology Transfer) and 26% of respondents do not
know it - of which R1 (47%)
̶ 25% of employees perceive support from MU in the field of public dissemination or commercial use of research work
at the faculty level as insufficient
̶ 22% of employees believe that they do not get a reasonable share of the profit as an author of scientific results at
the faculty, 45% of them cannot assess this fact
̶ More than half of the respondents were not able to assess the help of MU support departments
̶ Almost a quarter of women (24%) perceive working conditions as unequal, compared to 5% of men
̶ One third of women surveyed (33%) perceive job opportunities as unequal, compared to 10% of men
14
Priorities from the perspective of respondents
̶ Improving the quality of contacts with tutors, sharing experiences between academic staff at all levels.
̶ Reduction of pedagogical burden, clarification of the relationship between research and teaching.
̶ Perception of teaching as a full-fledged part of the academic's work and adequate remuneration (R1 x R2, project + non-project staff).
̶ Greater support in the area of ​​education and development and career growth from the faculty / superior. The selection criteria of teamwork, practical experience
outside the academia.
̶ Clear faculty policy and requirements for individual academic positions.
̶ The evaluation criteria (EVAK) are complicated and inaccurate.
̶ Selection procedure - professionalization, increasing the transparency of results, methodological support for participants.
̶ Better availability of information for solving work situations.
̶ Improving the functioning of project support (although the results show that it works in the workplace).
̶ Ensuring the availability of suitable collaborators and funding for research.
̶ Elimination / resolution of unethical behaviour.
̶ Familiarization with MU departments that help researchers to put the results of research into practice and promote them.
̶ Improving the remuneration of authors of scientific results who generate these results.
̶ Ensuring equal working conditions and opportunities (men x women, R1, foreigners).
15
16
Ph.D. students - relationships with tutors
Outcomes from focus groups
Women – as members of a professional group
̶ Strengths
Very good communication, speed of response
Consultancy in the field of research and publishing activities
Feedback, tips for education and development
He/she provides space, let me do what I enjoy
He/she gives me enough of his/her time
̶ Weaknesses
Unclear duties and responsibilities of the tutor
External tutors do not have enough information (eg. ISEP, raising money,
conducting research at the faculty)
Lack of information at the beginning of the study (in general)
The problem is finding a quality tutor
Interdisciplinary topics are taken rather negatively
There is no possibility of feedback on the quality of the relationship and
cooperation with the tutor
Insufficient involvement in research from the beginning of the study
̶ Strengths
The changing view of women and their role in research is changing with the
younger generation of academics
̶ Weaknesses
Men are primarily addressed to projects (women as "twos")
Men are preferred when filling jobs
Women are given less prestigious tasks / roles
Hard to promote suggestions, ideas
Women are not considered in qualification proceedings
Lack of sufficient recognition and appreciation of women's contribution
Lack of support from management / supervisor in career development
Doubts about fair remuneration
Insufficient conditions for the involvement of women in the activities and
bodies of the faculty
17
Main areas for improvement
Pedagogical
burden
Fixed term
contracts
Contacts
with tutors
Remuneration Recruitment
Career
growth
Training
and
development
Information
Ethical
behavior
Equal
treatment
and
opportunities
18
Proposals for Action Plan
Ethical and professional
aspects
• Raising awareness of the content
of the Code of Ethics and basic
research documents
• Support for dissemination and
commercialization of research
results (communication strategy)
Support and recognition of
women scientists
• Evaluation system optimization
(EVAK)
• Getting acquainted with Open
Science issues and MU support
departments
Recruitment and
selection
• Standardization of the recruitment
and selection process:
- faculty handbook and
methodology
- templates - conducting an
interview, evaluating the
candidate
- training of participants of
recruitment process
- expansion of advertising on
suitable portals
- the possibility of renewing the
contract for a definite period
without job interview
• Setting up and implementing a
system of job positions and
roles (including max. teaching
load)
• (Postdocs)
Working conditions and
social security
• Improving internal communication
• Revision of pedagogical workload
OSH - e-learning tool
• Setting career paths for individual
positions (career rules)
Implementation of the adaptation
process
• Revision / optimization of the
remuneration system
• Improving communication and
services provided in English
• Creating conditions for mobility
Training and
development
• Awareness raising and
development of Ph.D. students
• Define the standards of the
supervisor's work
• Training and development of
competencies in connection with
career paths and needs of the
target groups R1-R4 (education
and development system)
• Comprehensive offer of
development activities at FEA /
MU
19
HR Award information
̶ https://www.econ.muni.cz/vyzkum/hr-award
̶ E-mail: hr_award@econ.muni.cz
̶ Webpage – „news“
̶ E-mails, information events for employees
20
Thank you for your attention!
Doc. Ing. Petr Pirožek, Ph.D. – Vice-dean for Research and Science
Mgr. Petra Ježová – HR Award Manager
E-mail: petra.jezova@econ.muni.cz, hr_award@econ.muni.cz