Background and Rationale

The staff survey portion of the Strategic Plan Review began about February 18, with the posting of a web page on the WRL Intranet (accessible only to library staff within the two buildings). Besides posting real-time updates as the Strategic Plan documents were being reviewed and revised, the page also provided a space for questions or comments to be anonymously posted to the review committee. To date, few people have taken advantage of the option to poise questions, however the page itself has had more than 450 "hits" in the past three months.

On April 20, a second link was posted on the Intranet giving staff an opportunity to complete a survey. The survey consisted of approximately 30 questions aimed at gauging staff perception of the overall strategic plan and the role they played in it. The survey questions were based on the existing library vision statements and asked participants to answer two questions for each vision statement: How well WRL achieved the vision and the extent to which staff felt they contributed to it.

The survey was accessible for 20 days (until May 10), and staff was encouraged through six e-mails and in departmental meetings to complete the survey. Nearly half, 55 out of 118, staff members completed the survey.[1] The survey was anonymous and, while it could have been completed more than once, I don't see any evidence that there was any "ballot-box stuffing."

The complete survey is attached, along with the percentage of responses to the various questions.

For each vision statement staff were asked to evaluate how well WRL had met it in the current plan:

To a very great extent
Somewhat
Not in a meaningful way

For each of those same vision statements staff were asked to evaluate to what extent they had contributed to the statement:

To a very great extent
Somewhat
Not very much
Doesn't apply to me

While the submissions were anonymous, there were random numbers assigned to each submission. In reviewing the responses, I don't see any evidence that anyone used the veil of anonymity to uniformly praise or trash any one vision, department or set of programs. Some of the answers are very pointed, however, which, I believe, shows that staff felt comfortable sharing their feelings and opinions.

Thanks should go to Barry Trott, who created the survey in SurveyGold and generated the results that make up this report, as well as Elizabeth Parker who provided statistical information on WRL staff.

Summary

Staff seemed to feel that we have achieved – in some measure – most of our current strategic visions. In only half of the visions did anyone feel we had not achieved them in any meaningful way, and the largest percentage of those totaled only 5 percent. Providing a dynamic collection and early language experiences led the list of visions that staff felt had been achieved in significant measure.

Staff appear to generally feel they have contributed in some measure to most of the visions. This ranges from 88% ("Provides a friendly and informed staff who are vital parts of the cultural, social and educational life of the community"), to a low of 41% ("Provides early language experience for all children in the community").

The only real surprise I found was that nearly 18% felt that being a responsible steward of available resources didn't apply to them

Survey Overview

Instructions Provided To Respondents

The current WRL Vision statement established several benchmarks that we aspired to reach by 2005. For each of these vision statements we want to know how well you think we've achieved this vision, the extent to which you feel like you have been able to contribute to that, and in what ways we can improve on it in the next five years. Please also tell us if you feel a specific vision statement is not particularly important, or should be modified in some way.

Respondent Metrics

Respondents: 55

First Response: 4/20/2005 02:09 PM

Last Response: 5/9/2005 05:01 PM

Survey Results

The following is a graphical depiction of the responses to each survey question. Additional comments provided by respondents, if any, are included after each graph.