Discussion 2: Case Study on Motivation

monque11

PSYC_8552_Week01-11_caseStudy.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Discussion 2: Case Study on Motivation

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Walden Consulting Group

Organizational Report

Floating Design Shipbuilding Organization-Wide Analysis

March 2012

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Table of Contents

Section Title Page

________________ ___________________________________________________________________ __________

I Executive Summary 3

II Overview, Opportunity, and Methodology 7

III Opportunities for Improvement: Themes 10

VI Appendices 20

A. Survey Responses by theme 21

B. Survey Response by item number 30

C. Survey Response Rates 37

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Walden Consulting Group

Section I

Executive Summary

Floating Design Shipbuilding Organization-Wide Analysis

Floating Design

Shipbuilding

March 2012

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Section I - Executive Summary

This report contains the results from an organization-wide analysis conducted during the spring

of 2012. In response to concerns discussed by Bob N. Highwater, CEO of Floating Design

Shipbuilding, the Walden Consulting Group conducted a series of interviews and focus groups

with members at all hierarchical levels and within all divisions. These were followed by an

organizational-wide survey, which in turn was followed a second series of interviews and focus

groups. The purpose of the analysis was to identify the factors that may be contributing to the

following: an inability to meet client deadlines, a decrease in the quality of products produced by

FDS, and high employee turnover.

This abridged version of the complete analysis consists of three sections: (A) an overview of the

company and a statement of the problem, (B) the analysis broken down by theme; and (C)

appendices. The appendices consist of the following: (1) survey responses broken down by

theme; (2) survey responses by item number; and (3) response rates to the survey.

Figure 1 depicts the nine themes generated from the survey as well as all focus groups and

interviews.

Theme 1: Organizational Structure and Alignment. The first theme discussed below is that of

Organizational Structure and Alignment. The inability of FDS to meet client goals and respond

quickly to ever changing environmental conditions is a consequence, in large part, of the

separation of divisions based on nautical market as well as the redundancies observed in having

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

nearly identical units in the different divisions.

Moreover, because each division has control over its own workforce, employees are treated,

rewarded, paid, and allocated differently in each division. In general, employees tended to

evaluate the Government division most favorably. Employees in the Government division, on

average, tend to be paid better, work in better physical environments, are rewarded better, and

have access to better facilities and amenities than employees in similar units in the other

divisions, particularly the Fabrication and Construction units. This is, in part, reflective of the

fact that the Government division is the oldest and most lucrative division within the

organization.

Theme 2: Physical Environment. As discussed in greater depth in Section III, there is a great

deal of dissatisfaction regarding the physical environment in which Fabrication and Construction

(“yard”) workers do their jobs. For example, Construction workers have to work in the heat,

humidity, noise, and dirtiness of their respective “yards,” with little to no opportunity to escape

the oppressive environment.

Theme 3: Communication and Cooperation. In general, employees reported low levels of

communication and cooperation across divisions, a consequence, in part, of the organizational

structure, and also of the misalignment of goal and reward systems (see Theme 4); the overall

perceived lack of fairness (Theme 5); and the high levels of dissatisfaction toward upper, middle,

and supervisory management (Theme 6), especially among the Fabrication and Construction

workers.

Theme 4. Alignment of Goals and Rewards. In general, goals and rewards are assigned and

allocated differently across divisions, even among similar units. As a result, there is a great deal

of misalignment of goals across units within divisions, across divisions, and a general

misalignment of goals with the mission and strategic goals of the company.

Theme 5: Development, Employment, and Promotional Opportunities. Most employees,

with the exception of those working in the Government division, indicated dissatisfaction with

opportunities for career and skill development. Most problematic, however, was the high level of

dissatisfaction among Construction employees in the non-Government divisions regarding

employment opportunities. Because the HR departments of the different divisions operate

independently, employees do not have the ability to transfer to comparable units with similar

jobs when market conditions warrant employee layoffs in one division and new employee hiring

in another. In addition, employees, particularly “yard” (Construction) workers, indicated few

opportunities for promotions. Moreover, promotions, when they occurred, tended to based on

favoritism, not merit or qualifications.

Theme 6: Perceptions of Unfairness. In general, across most divisions and units (except the

Government division), employees indicated that they were often treated unfairly with respect to

the goals they are assigned, the process for allocating rewards, the distribution of rewards, the

manner in which their performance is evaluated, as well as the differences in status and perks

available to different units and divisions.

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Theme 7: Job and Work Characteristics. Clear differences emerged among different units,

independent of division. Most employees in Sales, HR, Accounting, and Engineering and Design

units indicated high levels of satisfaction regarding the nature of the work they do. However, in

the Fabrication and Construction units, employees, on average, reported high levels of

dissatisfaction with the repetitive nature of their jobs. There were few opportunities for skill

development, skill variety, and employees had little autonomy over their work processes. In

addition, most Fabrication and Construction employees worked on rotating 8-hour shifts, 24

hours a day.

Theme 8: Pay and Benefits. Although employees were generally satisfied with their pay, they

did not feel that the benefit plan options were flexible enough to take into account the differing

needs of employees.

Theme 9: Satisfaction with Management and Supervisors. Finally, as a consequence of all of

the above, employees indicated a general dissatisfaction and lack of trust with upper and middle

management as well as with their own supervisors and foremen. In general, employees did not

feel that they were valued, treated with respect, and treated fairly. Employees did not believe that

upper management really cared about them as individuals or human beings.

The themes summarized above and discussed in detail in the next section all contribute

interactively to a general lack of motivation among employees, particular those in the Fabrication

and Construction units in the non-Government divisions. However, pockets of dissatisfaction

also existed among employees of other units, including Sales, Engineering and Design,

Accounting, and HR. As a result, it is not surprising that FDS is having difficulty meeting client

deadlines or is unable to respond quickly to ever-changing market conditions. In addition, it is

also not surprising that the overall quality of FDS’s products has deteriorated to the point that

customer satisfaction has declined and contracts are being lost to their competitors, especially in

the non-Government divisions.

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Walden Consulting Group

Section II

Overview, Statement of Opportunity, and Methodology

Floating Design Shipbuilding Organization-Wide Analysis

Floating Design

Shipbuilding

March 2012

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Section II – Overview, Statement of Opportunity, and Methodology

Overview and Background

Floating Design Shipbuilding is a large shipbuilding designer, fabricator, and shipbuilder located

in Louisiana on the Gulf of Mexico near the border of Texas. FDS, founded in 1919 in response

to the United States’ involvement in World War I, became a major industry leader in the design

and development of naval vessels. For 60 years, FDS focused primarily on the development of

high-technological seafaring vessels including destroyers, aircraft carriers, and submarines. In

1979, FDS expanded into the design and development of large oil tankers and container ships.

In 2001, FDS further expanded its business into the private and commercial marketplace by

acquiring OceanLiner, Inc., a cruise ship builder, and YachtsRUs, a designer and builder of

custom made yachts and large-scale pleasure ships. In 2003, after purchasing an additional

10,000 acres of property along the Gulf of Mexico in Louisiana, FDS consolidated its naval

markets into one location.

However, FDS decided not to consolidate its operations. The Government division, which had

been largely successful for over 90 years continued to operate relatively independently of the

other three divisions: Oil and Container (OC), Ocean Liners (OL), and Yachts (Y). This was in

large part due to the necessity for all employees working on government contracts to pass

security clearances. As a result, employees of the Government division were largely insulated

from the rest of the organization.

A similar model was applied to the other three divisions: each division was free to operate

relatively independently of the other. However all divisions, including the Government Division,

were organized similarly with seven general departments: Business Development (Sales),

Engineering & Design (ED), Supply, Finance, Fabrication, Construction, and Human Resources.

Two additional departments existed independently of the four divisions: Legal and Public

Relations.

Overseeing all operations is the executive management team that consists of the chief executive

officer and chairman, the chief financial officer, and the chief operations officer. Answering

directly to the CEO are the presidents of Legal and Public Relations and the presidents of the

Government, Oil and Container, Cruise Line, and Yacht divisions.

In each division, answering to the division president, are vice presidents of Finance, Sales,

Design and Engineering, Supply, Fabrication, Construction, and Human Resources. Within each

department are numerous project managers and/or superintendents, salaried exempt employees,

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

salaried non-exempt employees, and hourly workers.

Opportunity: Statement of the Problem

The CEO/president of FDS contacted the Walden Consulting Group (WCG). The WCG team

met with the CEO who indicated that over the past few years customer complaints have been

increasing to the point at which several key projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars were

lost. Customer complaints ranged from an inability of FDS to meet client deadlines to defective

and unsafe products. As a result, there has been a loss of market share across all nautical

industries.

An internal analysis indicated some additional areas of concern that might be contributing to the

overall decrease in the ability of the company to meet client deadlines in a timely fashion and

produce products with which customers were satisfied. For example, in recent years, turnover

among the yard workers in the Construction division has been as high as 35%. Moreover, there

have been an increasing number of safety accidents among both the Fabrication and Construction

employees. Finally, there is some concern that the parts being produced by the Fabrication units

as well as those secured by the Supply division are often defective.

Methodology

A series of face-to-face interviews were conducted with each member of the executive team

along with all of the presidents and vice presidents. A series of focus groups were held with all

of project manager/superintendents and a survey was administered to all employees of the

company. After the survey results were analyzed, follow-up interviews and focus groups were

once again held at each level of the organization and across all divisions and departments. The

response rate to the survey was approximately 92.3%, largely due to incentives provided to

employees for their participation.

Of the 10,014 surveys that were distributed to Floating Design Shipbuilding’ employees, 9,240

were returned for a response rate of 92.3%. Of the 84% who reported their management level,

the majority was Nonsupervisory-Hourly employees (62.5%). Of the remaining respondents, 7%

were Vice Presidents/Directors, 1.2% were Managers/General Superintendents, 1.8% were

Section Managers/Superintendents, 11% were Foremen/Supervisors, 15.4% were

Nonsupervisory-Exempt employees, and 7.4% were Nonsupervisory-Nonexempt employees.

Nearly half of the respondents had been with Floating Design Shipbuilding for more than 15

years, while almost one-fourth had worked for Floating Design Shipbuilding for less than five

years. The remaining respondents' organizational tenure ranged from 5 to 14 years. Respondents

represented 11 departments within Floating Design Shipbuilding, including: Operations,

Public/Industrial Relations, Finance, Contracts, Business Development, Legal, Material, Quality

Assurance, Programs Management, Engineering, and LSS.

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Walden Consulting Group

Section III

Opportunities for Improvement: Themes

Floating Design Shipbuilding Organization-Wide Analysis

Floating Design

Shipbuilding

March 2012

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Section IV: Opportunities for Improvement: Themes

The following narratives are based on both the qualitative data collected through interviews and

focus groups and the survey data. Survey data are presented in a series of tables. The overall

survey item results are located in Section VI.

Although survey items were categorized by section on the survey itself, additional statistical

analyses as well as follow-up qualitative data collection (interview, focus groups) conducted by

the Walden Consulting Group indicated nine major themes: Physical Environment;

Organizational Structure and Alignment; Alignment of Goal and Reward Systems;

Developmental, Employment, and Promotion Opportunities; Perceptions of Unfairness;

Communication and Cooperation; Job/Work Characteristics; Satisfaction and Trust with

Management/Supervision; and Pay/Benefits.

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Results and Analysis By Theme

Theme 1: Organizational Structure and Alignment

In 1979, when FDS expanded into the design and development of large oil tankers and container

ships, it decided to create a new division separate from its Government division. This was due in

part to the very real differences in how the U.S. government awarded contracts as well as U.S.

government requirements for employees to pass security clearances. Conversely, the oil and

container industry was very competitive and required the ability to respond quickly to bids. In

2001, when FDS acquired OceanLiner, Inc. and YachtsRus, FDS decided to maintain clear

separate of these two divisions as well.

Each division, however, is structured similarly into eight general departments: Business

Development (Sales), Engineering & Design (ED), Supply, Finance, Fabrication, Construction,

and Human Resources. Although the president of each division ultimately reported to the CEO,

they were largely free to keep all aspects of their operations separate from the other divisions.

As a result, employees of each division are largely insulated from employees in other divisions.

Unfortunately the current organizational structure is problematic in multiple ways. First, the

duplication of similar units across divisions and the lack of integration among them have made it

difficult for FDS to respond quickly to changing market conditions. Market conditions in each of

the nautical industries tend to ebb and flow differently. For instance, orders from cruise ship

operators might decrease as a consequence of an unstable or insecure economic environment,

when people take fewer high-end vacations, while government contracts and orders in the private

consumer market might increase.

Because each division has its own separate HR department, FDS is unable to allocate and assign

personnel where needed across divisions. Sometimes, while one HR department in one division

might be hiring new workers to respond to an increase in contracts, another HR department in

another division might be laying off employees due to a decrease in contracts. This is also

acutely felt among the Construction unit employees in each division who, in the survey and focus

groups, indicated a lack of a sense of security regarding their jobs and a high level of frustration

with the fact that employees who are laid off due to a decrease in work in one unit do not get

assigned to comparable units that are currently hiring.

Similarly, the duplication of units across divisions has made it difficult for FDS to consolidate

and streamline redundancies and improve efficiency in processes and the acquisition of parts and

materials. For example, Supply units in different divisions negotiate for parts separately, which

unnecessarily and inadvertently has led to different price structures for different units.

Purchasing and negotiating power would increase if the Supply units were combined into a

single unit.

Finally, employees in similar units across divisions are treated, assigned goals, and allocated

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

rewards differently. As a result, as will be discussed below, employees in similar units in

different divisions reported high levels of dissatisfaction with their supervisors as well as high

levels of perceived unfairness.

Theme 2: Physical Environment

FDS is located on a 10,000 acre properly on the Gulf of Mexico in the state of Louisiana near the

border of Texas.

Physical Working Environment

The executives and executive staff, and the Sales, Design, Supply, Accounting and HR units are

all housed in a brand new, 10-story, air conditioned, state-of-the-art building. The executive

offices are located on the top floor of the building and are quite spacious. In addition, there is a

private exercise facility, complete with pool, sauna, equipment, and squash courts. The

executives also have their own separate entrance to the building. Beneath the executive suites are

the offices for the different divisions, with Government offices located on the eighth and ninth

floors, Cruise-Lines on the seventh and eighth floors, Private Consumers on the sixth floor, and

Oil and Container on the fourth and fifth floors. The second and third floors are currently

unoccupied. On the first floor is a centralized cafeteria and gym, both made available to all

employees of the building (but not to the non-supervisor Fabrication and Construction workers

who work in different locations throughout the campus).

The Fabrication and Construction units for the Government, Cruise-Line, Oil and Container, and

Yacht divisions are all scattered about the shoreline of the property. With the exception of the

Fabrication and Constructions units in the Government division, there was a great degree of

dissatisfaction with the physical environment in which employees are required to their work.

The Fabrication units for the non-Government divisions are housed in multiple buildings on the

south side of the sprawling campus. Although Fabrication units from these divisions are housed

separately, employee complaints were similar: The buildings are large, open, noisy, and

cramped, and worse, did not have air conditioning. The lack of air conditioning is a big issue

among these employees because the outside temperature in Louisiana is often 95 degrees with

95% humidity from June through September.

Conversely, the Fabrication unit for the Government division, although also located in a building

that is large and noisy, at least has or air conditioning. This is in large part because the profit

margins on government contracts are much greater than those of the other divisions and also

because the Government division has always been perceived as the bread and butter of FDS as a

whole. In addition, the Fabrication unit of the Government division enjoy a cafeteria located

away from the noise of the machinery, whereas Fabrication workers have a choice of going

outside to eat or eating by their stations. Because of the temperature and humidity, they often

chose the latter.

The Construction units for each division are located in separate yards, although collectively, the

yards are merely known as “the yard.” The yard is a series of separately divided open areas (by

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

division), each including docks, boat houses, and heavy equipment. As a result, yard workers

often have to work in the sun, heat, and humidity. In addition, because the yard is where all the

ships were actually constructed, the environment is noisy, dirty, and littered with heavy

equipment, parts, half-completed ships, etc.

As with the Fabrication units between the Government and non-Government divisions, the yard

employees in the Government division enjoy a separate building in which they can temporarily

escape the heat and humidity as well as eat their lunch, whereas yard employees of the other

divisions literally have no place to go to escape the environment or relax during breaks or lunch

time. Yard workers in these divisions typically sit out in the open to eat, further exposing

themselves to the heat and humidity.

As will be discussed under Theme 5: Perceptions of Fairness as well as Theme 9: Satisfaction

with Management and Supervision, non-Government Fabrication and yard workers are highly

resentful of the differences in physical environments between divisions. In addition, they are

also resentful of the other units within their own division who work in the main office—a climate

controlled building—and who also have their own cafeteria and gymnasium. The stark

differences in amenities provided between the Government and other Fabrication and yard

workers is only further evidence to them that they were not valued as employees.

Access Road and Parking Lots

Fabrication and Construction employees also noted the differences between the units in the

quality of access road and parking lots.

There are multiple access points to the campus. All employees located in the main building have

their own (and paved) entrance to a nicely landscaped portion of the business campus away from

the rest of the campus. Their parking lot is also paved, with the executive staff enjoying their

own reserved parking spaces near a separate entrance to the building

All Fabricators and yard workers working on government contracts must pass through a series of

checkpoints before arriving at their work places. Whereas the road and parking lot for all

Government Fabricator and yard workers is paved, the road and parking lot for all non-

Government Fabricator and yard workers is not paved. Over time, wear and tear due to years of

use by a variety of vehicles along with the weather conditions has made the access road and

parking lots quite treacherous. The road and parking lot contain large potholes and gullies and

after a rain was mostly mud. It was not uncommon for workers’ cars to bottom out in places and

for mud and dirt to accumulate on their vehicles. Once again, visible differences in road and

parking lot conditions only further heightened a sense of unfairness among non-Government

Fabrication and yard employees.

Theme 3: Communication and Cooperation

In general, communication between management (both upper and middle) is largely top-down,

with few opportunities for upward communication or upward feedback. Even more important,

there is very little opportunity for Fabrication and yard workers to provide suggestions or input

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

as to how to improve work and design processes. As shown by the survey items in Section IV,

employees indicated that managers and supervisors do not listen to employee feedback or offer

opportunities to suggest changes that would improve the quality of the products, process, and/or

structure. For example, yard workers, although being ultimately responsible for the construction

of all the ships, are rarely provided with opportunities for quality improvement. This is consistent

with the perception, discussed previously and subsequently in different sections, that they are not

valued as employees.

The results of the analysis also indicated that upper management often fails to indicate a sense of

direction and purpose to employees. As a result, employees are not clear about the overall

objectives of the organization or feel that they aren’t “in the loop.” Once again, as with other

themes, clear differences emerged between the Government and non-Government divisions, with

employees in the Government division indicating better top/down communication than

employees in the non-Government divisions.

Exacerbating the problem is that the offices of the managers and project managers are located in

the central building away from the actual work sites of the employees doing the work. Thus,

employees, especially Fabrication and yard employees, often felt that upper and middle

management didn’t appreciate their concerns. Rarely would they actually visit the Fabrication

buildings and instead would relay their orders to the foremen or immediate supervisors, who in

turn would relay the information onward.

Another theme that emerged with respect to communication was the relative dissatisfaction

among employees, especially in the Fabrication and Construction units, regarding the lack

cooperation between different units within a division as well as across similar units within

divisions. The lack of cooperation and communication is, in part, a consequence of the

differences in location between the Fabrication and Construction units and the Sales, Design,

HR, and Accounting units. For example, workers in the Construction and Fabrication units are

dependent on receiving adequate information and specifications from the Supply and Design

units, such as availability of materials and parts. All too often both Fabrication and Construction

units would run out parts or materials to complete a project, but would only learn of the limited

availability of supply after the fact.

Similarly, employees indicated that personnel in different units often appear to work at cross-

purposes. This appears to be due, in part, to a lack of alignment across units of the goal and

reward systems (see Theme 4: Goal and Reward Systems).

Theme 4: Goal and Reward Systems and Alignment

Although employees, in general, indicated broad agreement that they have a clear understanding

of their roles and performance goals, a great deal of dissatisfaction was noted regarding (a) how

goals are assigned and administered, (b) the lack of alignment of goals with the goals of similar

units across divisions and (c) a lack of alignment of goals of different units within the same

division.

Goal Assignments and Reward Allocations. Dissatisfaction was expressed regarding the

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

manner in which goals are assigned and performance rewarded. However, differences emerged

between similar units across divisions (except for the Government division).

For example, sales personnel in all non-Government divisions are compensated with a base

salary and commission. Sales quotas are assigned based on previous years’ sales, and bonuses

are provided for meeting those quotas. Each year’s quotas also reflect the need to grow the

business, such as the need to increase revenue by 20%. In general, the procedures by which

quotas are assigned are perceived to be unfair (see Theme 5: Perceptions of Unfairness). First,

the process by which quotas are set doesn’t take into account fluctuating market conditions as we

noted under Theme 1. Second, successful sales personnel feel “punished” because their sales

quotas increase based on their own previous year’s sales, not based on the average sales of the

group.

Third, sales personnel in the Government division are also rewarded based on sales, but because

the process of securing contracts with the U.S. government differs, sales personnel are not

assigned quotas. Instead, sales personnel working on government contracts are lobbyists whose

job it is to persuade the senators and congresspeople on the defense appropriation committees to

purchase contracts through their company.

In the Supply, Finance, and HR units, personnel receive bonuses based on the overall

profitability of the division. Bonuses are not tied to individual goal attainment, performance, or

merit. Thus, everyone receives a similar bonus based on the profitability of their division.

In the Fabrication units, most employees are paid hourly and receive bonuses based on the

degree to which individuals achieve their performance goals. However, not only are performance

goals assigned differently to individuals based on job role and occupation, performance goals are

also based on production quantity not quality. That is, assigned goals are based on the production

of a certain number of parts, rather than the degree to which those parts meet quality indicators.

As a result, it is quite common for such employees to “rush” their work. Similarly, supervisors

and foremen in the Fabrication units receive bonuses based on overall plant productivity, further

compounding the focus on quantity not quality.

Lack of goal/reward alignment in similar units across divisions. As discussed in Theme 1,

each division largely operates autonomously from the others. As a result, goals are set differently

and rewards are allocated differently across similar units. For example, yard employees in the

Government division receive bonuses based on the overall productivity of the Government

division. Conversely, in the non-Government construction units, hourly employees do not

receive bonuses at all. Thus, not only is there is no incentive to perform well, these differences

only contribute to overall perceptions of unfairness.

Lack of alignment across units within a division. Our analysis indicates that there is a lack of

alignment of goals between units of the same division. This lack of alignment contributes to the

problems noted in Theme 3: Communication d Cooperation. For example, sales goals personnel

receive are based on quotas; Fabrication workers receive quantity goals; Accounting receive

goals based on timeliness of invoices sent to clients and invoices paid; Supply receive goals

based on ensuring proper supply of parts and materials. Construction workers do not receive

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

goals.

Theme 5: Perceptions of Unfairness

As discussed in each of the sections above, perceptions of unfairness are common throughout the

organization with the exception of the employees working in the Government division.

Differences in the physical environment in which they have to work, differences in status

between employees in the Fabrication and Construction units compared to employees in the

other units, differences in the privileges enjoyed by Government versus non-Government

employees working in similar units, differences in the perks enjoyed by executives, combined

with differences in the setting of goals and the allocation of bonuses/rewards and the inability of

the company to allocate employees who have or are going to be laid off to units in different

divisions that are currently hiring, have led to high levels of perceived unfairness on the part of

employees, particularly the Fabrication and Construction worker.

Employees, in general, perceive that performance goals, the procedures used to evaluate and

reward performance, and the actual rewards distributed are not fair.

Additionally, in the focus groups and interviews, employees in the Fabrication and Construction

units complained of favoritism on the part of their supervisors and foremen. For example,

Fabrication and Construction workers work either hour rotating shifts in 24-hour cycles.

However, given the heat and humidity of the working conditions during the daytime, many of the

Construction workers, for example, prefer working the night shift. However, assignment of shifts

is the responsibility of the foremen, who tend to give the best shifts to their friends and the worst

shifts to those they don’t like.

Compounding these perceptions, particularly among the yard employees, is that the racial

composition of yard employees largely reflects the racial population of Louisiana (64% white;

32% black; 4% Hispanic), whereas the majority of staff and Fabrication workers is about 98%

white.

Theme 6: Job/Work Characteristics

Our analysis indicated several concerns with job and work characteristics. In general,

employees, particularly those in the Fabrication and Construction units, indicated a general lack

of autonomy over their work processes, little opportunity for skill variety, and few opportunities

to learn new skills.

However, employee perceptions and satisfaction levels differed depending on their occupational

unit. Personnel in the Sales units, although answering to a particular sales manager, have a great

deal of latitude in how they do their jobs. Although they have “home” offices at HQ, they are

often on the road building their client base or taking care of client issues. They are able to

exercise much discretion about how they interface with their clients. These individuals tended to

report the high levels satisfaction with their jobs and supervisors (the Sales managers) and

reported high levels of autonomy

Employees in the Design units are mostly highly educated ship designers and engineers. The

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

office environment is largely open and spacious with lots of opportunities for collaboration.

Similar to the Sales personnel, the ship designers reported a great deal of autonomy and

flexibility over their work; satisfaction scores with work were generally high as was satisfaction

with their supervisors (Design managers). More often than not a single designer or team of

designers is responsible for the design of one ship at a time. Designers reported the highest levels

of satisfaction of their work. The Supply, Accounting, and HR personnel enjoyed a similar

degree of latitude in their jobs, although they did indicate their jobs tended to be rather

specialized and routine. For example, supply personnel have to keep track of requisition orders,

location of supplies, etc., while Accounting personnel largely handle the books, such as accounts

receivable and payable.

In contrast with the personnel from the above units, the real issues involve the Fabrication and

Construction units, particularly those working in the non-Government divisions. As indicated

above, the working environments for the Fabrication units are largely noisy with little

temperature regulation. Division of labor flows through from the Fabrication manager, through

the project managers, through the supervisors, and then the foremen. However, several

complaints were noted. Craftspeople tended to become too narrowly specialized, often doing the

same job repeatedly, day after day, job after job. Their jobs tended to become routine, repetitive,

and boring. As a result, employees often disengage their attention from their work, leading to the

introduction of “errors.” In addition, because of the repetitive nature of their jobs, repetitive

stress injuries were a problem, which tended to slow down work. Attempts at cross-training and

further skill development to increase skill variety tended to be viewed by upper management as

unnecessary and wasteful in terms of time and cost. Job satisfaction is quite low among the

craftsworkers. Safety issues are also a concern as Fabrication employees often work with

complex tools and machinery. Although there is a sign indicating the number of days without an

accident, the running joke is that if the number is higher than 10, people aren’t producing

products fast enough.

The biggest problems were associated with the yard workers. As indicated under Theme 2:

Physical Environment, working in the yard posed many health and safety issues. Often the heat

index is over 100 degrees with little opportunity for rest and shade. Contrary to employees in the

Fabrication units, who tend to work individually on their own projects, yard employees are

structured in teams who are responsible for portions of the ship. Thus, a group of individuals

might be responsible for constructing cabins or assembling engines. However, similar to

employees in the Fabrication units, teams of individuals rarely have the opportunity for

additional cross-training and development. Their work often involves constructing the same

portion of a ship, ship after ship, although each project itself (each ship) might take days or

weeks to complete.

In addition, another problem we noted was that teams responsible for different parts of the same

ship often checked on the pace of the work of other teams and adjusted their own pace

accordingly. Faster working teams were often berated for working too fast as it made other teams

look bad. Indeed, a culture of “slow speed” developed in which each team tends to match the

speed of the lowest team. Compounding this issue was that yard workers are paid hourly but

never received any type of bonuses for their work, impacting both speed and quality of

production.

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

In addition to being very dissatisfied with the environmental conditions, yard workers are also

dissatisfied with a lack of opportunities for skill variety and enhancement. Moreover, they felt as

though they were expendable by upper management. They felt little meaning for their work or

little ownership over their work processes. Indeed, as a result of resentment and perceptions of

unfairness discussed in Theme 5, yard workers often sabotage portions of a ship in order to “get

back” at management who are viewed as an aristocracy that cared little for them.

Theme 7: Development, Employment, and Promotion Opportunities

As discussed previously in this report, the structure of the company into separate divisions

consisting of similar units has made it very difficult for the organization to respond to changing

market conditions. As a consequence, there are times when fabrication and construction

personnel, in particular, need to be laid off in some divisions, but hired in other divisions.

However, because different HR departments exist, one for each division, the ability to transfer

personnel across divisions in response to market conditions does not occur. As a result, employee

perceptions of opportunities for continued employee as well as promotional opportunities are low

and perceived to be unfair. Many hourly employees reported high levels of dissatisfaction with

current hiring procedures. Employees do not understand why the company does not allocate

employees to units in which the work is needed, rather than separately firing and hiring

employees.

Moreover, when promotional opportunities do arise within the Fabrication and Construction

units, it is the foremen who make recommendations as to who to be promoted or not. It is often

the case that a foreman would select his own “heir.” Promotions are not based on merit.

Theme 8: Pay and Benefits

Although employees reported about an average level of satisfaction with pay, they are less

satisfied with the benefit plan. In general, employees receive a standard package that includes

health care and disability insurance. However, many employees would prefer to selection benefit

options based on need (e.g., family health care, dental plans, long-term insurance, legal fees,

etc.).

Theme 9: Satisfaction/Trust with Management and Supervision

Employees expressed a high level of dissatisfaction toward upper, middle, and lower

management, which is, in part, indicative of the many issues discussed previously in this report:

the independence of organizational divisions, the lack of cooperation and communication

between and within divisions, the clear status differences enjoyed by executives and staff outside

the non-Government Fabrication and Construction units, the manner in which decisions are

made, goals assigned, rewards determined and allocated, and the differences in work

environments all contribute to an overall level of dissatisfaction and lack of trust with all levels

of management. In general, employees do not trust management or their supervisor to make fair

decisions, to evaluate them fairly, to provide opportunities for skill development and continued

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

employment. Moreover, in general, employees do not feel that they are valued, recognized, or

treated with respect.

Finally, among Construction workers in particular, supervisors and foremen were often reported

to treat their own workers with an “iron fist.” Power and territory seemed to be more important

to them than employee relations.

The lack of satisfaction with management at all levels clearly is both a consequence of the many

factors described previously in this report as well as a contributing factor to the many problems

observed with productivity, efficiency, quality, turnover, and sabotage.

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Walden Consulting Group

Appendix A

Survey Results – Opportunities for Improvement by Theme

Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Floating Design Shipbuilding

March 2012

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Survey Item Results By Theme

Theme 1: Organizational Alignment and Market Competitiveness

Theme 1: Organizational Alignment

Q# Item Valid

N Avg. Disagree

(%) Neutral

(%) Agree

(%)

3 The way we’re organized allows work to flow smoothly between units.

8567 1.81 66.7 16.9 16.5

14 Changes are made to remain competitive. 8415 2.60 55.6 25.0 19.4 15 The right people are put in the right jobs. 8489 2.16 67.2 18.8 13.9 51 The performance goals of my unit are in

alignment with the performance goals of other units in our division.

8593 2.12 66.2 20.8 13

52 The performance goals of my unit are aligned with the organization’s mission and strategic goal.

8588 2.44 38.3 33.5 28.2

Theme 1 Average 2.23 ----- ----- -----

Notes. Valid N for Theme averages differs from item N’s because of accumulated missing data. Survey items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neutral,” 4 = “Agree,” and 5 = “Strongly Agree”). All of the “Does not apply” responses were recoded as missing data. Item averages were calculated using this scale. To calculate item percentages, the 5-point scale was collapsed into a 3-point scale (“Disagree” = Strongly Disagree and Disagree responses, “Neutral” = neutral response, and “Agree” = Strongly Agree and Agree responses). Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding error.

Theme 2: Physical Environment

Theme 2: Satisfaction with Physical Environment

Q# Item Valid

N Avg. Disagree

(%) Neutral

(%) Agree

(%)

67 I am satisfied with the cleanliness of my work environment.

8458 2.9 60.2 18.8 21

68 I have an adequate place to eat lunch. 8501 1.88 80.4 10.5 9.1 78 I am satisfied with my working environment. 8511 1.81 88.2 11.1 6.7

Theme 2 Average 2.20 ----- ----- -----

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Survey Item Results By Theme (Continued)

Theme 3: Communication/Cooperation

Q# Item Valid

N Avg. Disagree

(%) Neutral

(%) Agree

(%)

2 At FDS, the program for people to suggest needed changes is clear.

8528 2.35 55.5 17.6 26.9

4 In general, we have good communications between units.

8566 2.22 55.0 19.4 25.7

18 A spirit of cooperation/teamwork exists among my coworkers.

8588 2.98 45.8 28.8 25.4

19 A spirit of cooperation/teamwork exists between units.

8368 2.74 46.3 23.3 30.3

21 Managers at FDS clearly communicate a sense of direction and purpose.

8419 2.73 46.5 25.8 27.7

22 Managers at FDS listen carefully to employees’ feedback.

8471 2.53 46.4 33.4 20.2

38 My supervisor solicits feedback from me to improve his/her own performance.

8469 2.46 62.3 17.9 19.8

Theme 3 Average 2.57 ----- ----- -----

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Survey Item Results By Theme (Continued)

Theme 4: Goal and Reward Systems and Alignment

Theme 4: Alignment of Goals and Rewards

Q# Item Valid

N Avg. Disagree

(%) Neutral

(%) Agree

(%)

11 At FDS, more emphasis is placed on producing high quality products than meeting schedules and budget.

8498 2.36 60.4 18.8 20.8

12 Standards of quality are well defined. 8491 2.84 44.7 26.0 29.4

13 In general, at Floating Design Shipbuilding, there is an emphasis on continual quality improvement of products and services.

8465 2.67 52.7 24.7 22.6

25 Managers at FDS set realistic deadlines for completion of tasks/projects.

8314 2.95 36.3 25.1 38.6

50 My performance goals are in alignment with the goals of others.

8595 2.77 44.1 30.2 25.7

51 The performance goals of my unit are in alignment with the performance goals of other units in our division.

8593 2.12 66.2 20.8 13

52 The performance goals of my unit are aligned with the organization’s mission and strategic goal.

8588 2.44 38.3 33.5 28.2

53 I have input into the development of my performance goals.

8588 2.12 64.5 18.3 17.2

77 The rewards given to employees in my unit are in alignment with the my unit’s goals

8230 2.31 66.8 20.0 12.2

78 The rewards given to employees in my unit are in alignment with those of other units.

8234 1.98 76.4 11.0 13.5

79 The rewards given to employees in my unit are in alignment with the organization’s mission and strategic goals.

8191 2.03 78.4 10.1 11.5

Theme 4 Average 2.34 ----- ----- -----

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Survey Item Results By Theme (Continued)

Theme 5: Perceptions of Fairness

Theme 5: Satisfaction and Perceptions of Goals and Rewards (Perceived Fairness)

Q# Item Valid

N Avg. Disagree

(%) Neutral

(%) Agree

(%)

54 My performance goals are fair. 8595 2.21 66.2 16.9 16.9

56 The procedures used to evaluate my performance are fair and objective.

8590 2.77 33.6 47.1 19.3

57 My performance rating represents a fair and accurate picture of my actual job performance.

8594 2.64 27.7 53.7 18.6

58 I am satisfied with the degree of respect and fair treatment I receive from my supervisor.

8670 2.37 66.7 15.1 18.1

66 I believe disciplinary procedures are fair and consistent.

8436 2.97 41.2 22.6 36.2

75 I believe that rewards are distributed fairly 8238 1.88 90.3 4.1 5.6

76 I believe that the process for allocating rewards is fair.

8192 1.9 88.6 5.8 5.6

74 I am satisfied with the rewards I receive. 8378 1.6 93.2 4.2 2.6

Theme 5 Average 2.29 ----- ----- -----

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Survey Item Results By Theme (Continued)

Theme 6: Job/Work Characteristics

Theme 6: Satisfaction with Autonomy, Skill Variety, Career Development, & Training

Q# Item Valid

N Avg. Disagree

(%) Neutral

(%) Agree

(%)

6 Employees receive enough training to do their job well.

8589 2.90 41.9 19.3 38.7

40 My supervisor gives me autonomy and freedom in how I do my job.

8490 2.64 53.6 25.7 20.7

44 My supervisor trusts me to make decisions related to my work.

8563 2.44 72.2 13.4 14.4

63 I am satisfied that I can use the training I receive in my work area.

8363 3.01 35.2 31.1 33.7

77 I am satisfied with the degree of autonomy I have in how I do my job

8344 2.33 38.3 33.3 28.4

79 I am satisfied with the opportunities to learn new skills.

8234 2.66 48.3 34.2 17.5

Theme 6 Average 2.66 ----- ----- -----

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Survey Item Results By Theme (Continued)

Theme 7: Development, Employment, and Promotion Opportunities

Theme 7: Satisfaction with Promotion Opportunities and Continued Employment

Q# Item Valid

N Avg. Disagree

(%) Neutral

(%) Agree

(%)

7 Employees’ capabilities are developed effectively.

8428 2.11 44.9 31.1 24.0

8 Employees are aware of job openings. 8572 2.32 49.5 15.2 35.3 23 People are promoted based on competence and

performance rather than on favoritism. 8503 2.18 66.4 15.8 17.8

45 My supervisor is interested in my career development by telling me about developmental activities (i.e., training, education, etc.) that I should be working on to enhance my skills.

8501 2.94 38.1 24.4 37.5

64 I am satisfied with my chances for promotion. 8352 2.57 71.5 19 9.5 Theme 7 Average 7450 2.42 ----- ----- -----

Theme 8: Pay and Benefits

Theme 8: Satisfaction with Pay and Benefits

Q# Item Valid

N Avg. Disagree

(%) Neutral

(%) Agree

(%)

71 I believe FDS has a good benefits package. 8463 2.88 26.8 52.6 20.6 72 I am satisfied with the benefits I receive. 8378 2.67 54.3 25.7 20

73 I am satisfied with my pay. 8378 2.96 44.5 28.2 27.3

Theme 8 Average 7450 2.84 ----- ----- -----

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Survey Item Results By Theme (Continued)

Theme 9: Satisfaction/Trust with Management and Supervision

Theme 9: Satisfaction and Trust in Management and Supervision

Q# Item Valid

N Avg. Disagree

(%) Neutral

(%) Agree

(%)

5 At FDS, people are recognized for work that is done well.

8538 2.59 53.4 17.1 29.5

9 There is trust between Floating Design Shipbuilding’ management and employees.

8525 2.22 64.6 19.4 16.0

15 The right people are put in the right jobs.

8489 2.16 67.2 18.8 13.9

27 In general, I believe that supervisors care about my opinions.

8404 2.61 59.1 18.8 23.2

28 In general, I believe that supervisors are trustworthy (I can believe what they tell me).

8366 2.51 51.9 23.9 24.2

29 In general, I believe that supervisors care about my well-being.

8309 2.68 45.9 24.1 30.0

30 In general, I believe that supervisors encourage individual initiative in their employees.

7894 2.55 45.2 27.4 37.3

78 I believe that the results of this survey will be used to improve our organization.

8130 2.55 43.2 35.2 21.6

31 In general, I believe that my supervisor would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake.

8662 2.51 61.4 16.2 22.4

33 In general, I believe that my supervisor does not tend to “rule with an iron fist.”

8356 2.44 15.9 15.4 68.8

34 In general, I believe that my supervisor collects accurate and complete information before making job decisions.

8527 2.96 23.5 55 21.5

35 In general, I believe that my supervisor communicates policy decisions to his/her work unit.

8437 2.5 61.2 21.9 16.9

36 In general, I believe that my supervisor gives me timely and helpful feedback on my job performance.

8587 2.72 52.3 20.2 27.6

37 My supervisor praises me often for a job well done.

8552 2.46 43.2 34.7 22.1

38 My supervisor solicits feedback from me to improve his/her own performance.

8469 2.46 62.3 17.9 19.8

39 In general, I believe that my supervisor readily recognizes those things (technological limitations, lack of resources, lack of materials, etc.) that may stand in the way of achieving our department’s objectives.

8508 2.6 57.3 20.5 22.2

40 My supervisor gives me autonomy and freedom in how I do my job.

8490 2.64 53.6 25.7 20.7

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

41 My supervisor shows sensitivity for the needs and feelings of other members of the organization.

8518 2.94 49.7 24.1 26.2

42 In general, I believe that my supervisor follows well-established courses of action to achieve departmental goals.

8540 3.06 17.4 57.3 25.3

43 In general, I believe that my supervisor is willing to try new ways of doing things in order to increase productivity and/or quality.

8534 2.96 19.9 65.3 14.8

44 In general, I believe that my supervisor trusts me to make decisions related to my work.

8563 2.44 72.2 13.4 14.4

45 In general, I believe that my supervisor is interested in my career development by telling me about developmental activities (i.e., training, education, etc.) that I should be working on to enhance my skills.

8501 2.94 38.1 24.4 37.5

47 In general, I believe my supervisor appreciates the work I do.

8617 2.69 26.3 18.8 54.9

48 In general, I am satisfied with the degree of respect and fair treatment I receive from my supervisor.

8670 2.37 66.7 15.1 18.1

49 In general, I am satisfied with the amount of support and guidance I receive from my supervisor.

8565 2.43 63.1 18.4 18.5

50 In general, I respect my supervisor’s knowledge and competence on the job.

8576 2.86 36.2 29.6 34.2

51 In general, I admire my supervisor’s professional skills.

8482 2.93 34.8 34.7 30.5

Theme 9 Average 7450 2.63 ----- ----- -----

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Walden Consulting Group

Appendix A: Survey Item Results

Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Section IV: Survey Item Results

Floating Design

Shipbuilding

March 2012

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

The Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey consisted of 79 items across four sections: (A) items involving attitudes about upper level managerial policies and procedures; (B) items involving attitudes about managers; (C) items involving attitudes about employee’s supervisors; and (D) items involving miscellaneous attitudes and employee behaviors (e.g., overall job satisfaction, satisfaction with facilities, organizational satisfaction).

Section A: In general, at Floating Design Shipbuilding…

Q# Item Valid

N Avg. Disagree

(%) Neutral

(%) Agree

(%)

1 Employees understand how their work supports Floating Design Shipbuilding’ mission, vision, and purpose.

8581 3.49 20.1 17.8 62.0

2 The program for people to suggest needed changes is clear.

8528 2.35 55.5 17.6 26.9

3 The way we’re organized allows work to flow smoothly between units.

8567 1.81 66.7 16.9 16.5

4 We have good communications between units

8566 2.22 55.0 19.4 25.7

5 People are recognized for work that is done well.

8538 2.59 53.4 17.1 29.5

6 Employees receive enough training to do their job well.

8589 2.90 41.9 19.3 38.7

7 Employees’ capabilities are developed effectively.

8428 2.11 44.9 31.1 24.0

8 Employees are aware of job openings.

8572 2.32 49.5 15.2 35.3

9 There is trust between Floating Design Shipbuilding’ management and employees.

8525 2.22 64.6 19.4 16.0

10 We produce high-quality products and services.

8583 3.00 35.3 28.4 36.3

11 More emphasis is placed on producing high- quality products than meeting schedules and budget.

8498 2.36 60.4 18.8 20.8

12 Standards of quality are well defined.

8491 2.84 44.7 26.0 29.4

13 There is an emphasis on continual quality improvement of products and services.

8465 2.33 52.7 24.7 22.6

14 Changes are made to remain competitive.

8415 2.60 55.6 25.0 19.4

15 The right people are put in the right jobs.

8489 2.16 67.2 18.8 13.9

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Section A (cont.): In general, at Floating Design Shipbuilding…

Q# Item Valid

N Avg. Disagree

(%) Neutral

(%) Agree

(%)

16 Coworkers are fair and honest.

8545 3.01 30.0 33.2 36.8

17 Coworkers keep promises and honor commitments.

8473 3.05 27.7 35.8 36.5

18 A spirit of cooperation/teamwork exists among coworkers within units.

8588 3.22 29.4 18.8 51.8

19 A spirit of cooperation/teamwork exists between units.

8368 2.74 46.3 23.3 30.3

20 Company publications and newsletter (e.g., The Floating Design Shipbuilder) keep employees adequately informed about our company.

8611 3.64 15.2 17.8 67.0

Section Average 8521 2.97 ----- ----- -----

Note. Survey items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neutral,” 4 = “Agree,” and 5 = “Strongly Agree”). All of the “Does not apply” responses were recoded as missing data. Item averages were calculated using this scale. To calculate item percentages, the 5-point scale was collapsed into a 3-point scale (“Disagree” = Strongly Disagree and Disagree responses, “Neutral” = neutral response, and “Agree” = Strongly Agree and Agree responses). Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding error.

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Section B: In general, Managers at Floating Design Shipbuilding…

Q# Item Valid

N Avg. Disagree

(%) Neutral

(%) Agree

(%)

21 Clearly communicate a sense of direction and purpose.

8419 2.93 42.5 25.8 31.7

22 Listen carefully to employees’ feedback. 8471 2.53 46.4 33.4 20.2 23 Promote people based on competence and

performance rather than on favoritism. 8503 2.18 66.4 15.8 17.8

24 Involve the appropriate people in decisions that affect them.

8402 2.72 43.8 27.5 28.7

25 Set realistic deadlines for completion of tasks/projects.

8314 2.95 36.3 25.1 38.6

26 Effectively implement decisions. 8228 3.02 29.3 34.7 36.0 Section Average 8331 2.67 ----- ----- -----

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Section C: In general, I believe that my supervisor…

Q# Item Valid

N Avg. Disagree

(%) Neutral

(%) Agree

(%)

31 Would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake.

8662 2.51 61.4 16.2 22.4

32 Effectively deals with problem employees 8522 3.19 29.2 22.4 48.3 33 Tends to “rule with an iron fist.” 8356 2.44 15.9 15.4 68.8 34 Collects accurate and complete information

before making job decisions. 8527 3.06 23.5 55 21.5

35 Communicates policy decisions to his/her work unit.

8437 3.5 17 21.9 61.2

36 Gives me timely and helpful feedback on my job performance.

8587 3.28 52.3 20.2 27.6

37 Praises me often for a job well done. 8552 2.46 43.2 34.7 22.1 38 Solicits feedback from me to improve his/her

own performance. 8469 2.46 62.3 17.9 19.8

39 Readily recognizes those things (technological limitations, lack of resources, lack of materials, etc.) that may stand in the way of achieving our unit’s objectives.

8508 2.6 57.3 20.5 22.2

40 Gives me autonomy and freedom in how I do my job.

8490 2.64 53.6 25.7 20.7

41 Shows sensitivity for the needs and feelings of other members of the organization.

8518 2.94 49.7 24.1 26.2

42 Follows well-established courses of action to achieve unit goals.

8540 3.06 17.4 57.3 25.3

43 Is willing to try new ways of doing things in order to increase productivity and/or quality.

8534 2.96 19.9 65.3 14.8

44 Trusts me to make decisions related to my work.

8563 2.44 72.2 13.4 14.4

45 Is interested in my career development by telling me about developmental activities (i.e., training, education, etc.) that I should be working on to enhance my skills.

8501 2.94 38.1 24.4 37.5

Section Average 8518 3.34 2.91 ----- -----

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Section D: In general,

Q# Item Valid

N Avg. Disagree

(%) Neutral

(%) Agree

(%)

46 I am satisfied with my job. 8593 2.49 61.6 18.2 20.2 47 I believe my supervisor appreciates the work I

do. 8617 2.69 26.3 18.8 54.9

48 I have a clear understanding of my job duties and responsibilities.

8595 4.08 6.4 8.2 85.4

49 I receive clear performance goals. 8594 3.36 18.6 53.7 27.7

50 My performance goals are in alignment with the goals of others.

8595 2.77 44.1 30.2 25.7

51 The performance goals of my unit are in alignment with the performance goals of other units in our division.

8593 2.12 66.2 20.8 13

52 The performance goals of my unit are aligned with the organization’s mission and strategic goal.

8588 2.44 38.3 33.5 28.2

53 I have input into the development of my performance goals.

8588 2.12 64.5 18.3 17.2

54 My performance goals are fair. 8595 2.21 66.2 16.9 16.9

55 I am clear as to how my performance will be evaluated.

8595 3.18 29.2 44.7 26.1

56 The procedures used to evaluate my performance are fair and objective.

8590 2.77 33.6 47.1 19.3

57 My performance rating represents a fair and accurate picture of my actual job performance.

8594 3.36 18.6 53.7 27.7

58 I am satisfied with the degree of respect and fair treatment I receive from my supervisor.

8670 3.63 66.7 15.1 18.1

59 I am satisfied with the amount of support and guidance I receive from my supervisor.

8565 3.57 63.1 18.4 18.5

60 I respect my supervisor’s knowledge and competence on the job.

8576 2.86 36.2 29.6 34.2

61 I admire my supervisor’s professional skills. 8482 2.93 34.8 34.7 30.5 62 I am satisfied with the amount of training I

receive. 8450 2.72 52.2 20.6 27.2

63 I am satisfied that I can use the training I receive in my work area.

8363 3.01 35.2 31.1 33.7

64 I am satisfied with my chances for promotion. 8352 2.57 71.5 19 9.5 65 I often make suggestions to improve my

department. 8353 3.29 11.2 58.3 30.5

66 I believe disciplinary procedures are fair and consistent.

8436 2.97 41.2 22.6 36.2

67 I am satisfied with the cleanliness of my work environment.

8458 2.9 60.2 18.8 21

68 I have an adequate place to eat lunch. 8501 1.88 80.4 10.5 9.1 69 I have the equipment I need to do my job safely

and effectively. 8476 3.3 27.7 14.8 57.5

70 I am proud of being part of the FDS team. 8523 2.74 66.6 10.3 23.1 71 I believe FDS has a good benefits package. 8463 3.19 21.2 58.6 20.2 72 I am satisfied with the benefits I receive. 8378 2.67 54.3 25.7 20

73 I am satisfied with my pay. 8378 3.5 14.6 29 56.4

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

74 I am satisfied with the rewards I receive. 8378 1.6 93.2 4.2 2.6

75 I believe that rewards are distributed fairly. 8238 1.88 90.3 4.1 5.6

76 I believe that the process for allocating rewards is fair.

8192 1.9 88.6 5.8 5.6

77 The reward given to employees in my unit are in alignment with the my unit’s goals.

8230 2.03 78.4 10.1 11.5

78 The reward given to employees in my unit are in alignment with those of other units.

8234 1.98 76.4 11.0 13.5

79 The rewards given to employees in my unit are in alignment with the organization’s mission and strategic goals.

8191 2.31 66.8 20.0 12.2

77 I am satisfied with the degree of autonomy I have in how I do my job.

8344 2.33 38.3 33.3 28.4

78 I am satisfied with my working environment. 8511 1.81 88.2 11.1 6.7

78 I believe that the results of this survey will be used to improve our organization.

8130 2.55 43.2 35.2 21.6

79 I am satisfied with the opportunities to learn new skills.

8234 2.66 48.3 34.2 17.5

Section Average 8454 2.75

----- ----- -----

Total Average

8456

2.82 ----- ----- -----

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Walden Consulting Group

Appendix C: Response Rates

Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Floating Design

Shipbuilding

March 2012

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey

Section II: Response Rates

Overall

Of the 10,014 surveys distributed to Floating

Design Shipbuilding’ employees, 9,240 were

returned to the Walden Design Group for a

response rate of 92.3%. This response rate is far

above the response rates of most organizational

surveys.

Un-

returned

7.7%

Returned

92.3%

Management & Non-management

Of the 9,240 surveys returned, 7,766 employees

(84%) reported their management level. Of these,

85.3% (n = 6,623) indicated that they were non-

management, whereas 14.7% (n = 1,143) indicated

that they were management.

Mgmt.

14.7%

Non-

Mgmt.

85.3%

Management Levels

The following provides a breakdown of the 7,738

respondents who indicated their management

level:

% n Level ____

0.7 28 Vice President

1.2 90 Manager/General

Superintendent (MGR/GS)

1.8 141 Middle Managers/

Superintendent (MM/SPT)

11.0 856 Foreman/Supervisor (FM/SUP)

15.4 1,194 Nonsupervisory-Exempt (EX)

7.4 576 Nonsupervisory-Nonexempt

(NEX)

62.5 4,853 Nonsupervisory-Hourly (HLY)

15%

NEX

HLY

63%

FM/SUP

11%

MM/SPT

MGR/GS

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey