As an organizational psychology professional, not only must you be familiar with work motivation theories and how to apply them in various organizational settings, you also must be able to recognize a

Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 1 Walden Consulting Group Organizational Report Floating Design Shipbuilding Organization -Wide Analysis March 2012 Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 2 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 © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 3 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 Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 4 Section I - Executive Summa ry 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 int erviews 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 i dentify 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 sect ions: (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 Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 5 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 Governm ent 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 othe r 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 grea ter 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 dir tiness 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 exc eption 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 div ision 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, t he 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 Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 6 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 ave rage, 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 Constr uction 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 diffe ring 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 supe rvisors 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 a nd 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 ex isted 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 © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 7 Wal den 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 Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 8 Section II – Overview, Statement of Oppor tunity, 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 Unite d 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 t hat 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 m anagers and/or superintendents, salaried exempt employees, Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 9 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 i ndicated 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 defec tive 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 increasi ng 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 al l 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 managemen t 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 © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 10 Walden Consulting Group Section III Opportunities for Improvement: Themes Floating Design Shipbuilding Organization -Wide Analysis Floa ting Design Shipbuilding March 2012 Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 11 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 V I. Although survey items were categorized by section on the survey itself, additional statistical analyses as well as follow -up qualitative data collection (interview, focus g roups) 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 Unf airne ss; Communication and Cooperation; Job/Work Characteristics ; Satisfaction and Trust with Management/ Supervis ion; and Pay/Benefits . Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 12 Results and Analysis By Theme Theme 1: Organizational Structure and Alignment In 1979, when FDS expanded into the d esign 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.

govern ment 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 main tain 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 othe r 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 few er 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 Construc tion 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 no t 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 a nd 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 un its 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 Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 13 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. Ph ysical 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 o f 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 of fices 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 thi rd 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 t he 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 Governme nt 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 sprawli ng 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 amo ng 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 temperatu re 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 Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 14 division), ea ch 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 h eat 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, f urther 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 diff erences 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 di fferences 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 camp us 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 t hrough 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 ti me, 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 wa s 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 l ittle opportunity for Fabrication and yard workers to provide suggestions or input Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 15 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 feedb ack 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 opport unities 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 i ndicate 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 Gov ernment 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 act ually 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 conse quence 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 specifi cations 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 Syst ems). 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 ar e 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 Assignment s and Reward Allocations . Dissatisfaction wa s expressed regarding the Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 16 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 reve nue 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 Th eme 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 congress people 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 attain ment, 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 perform ance 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 plan t 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 diff erently 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, h ourly 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 t here 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 r eceive 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 Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 17 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 i n 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 performan ce, 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 j ob 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 skil ls. 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 the y 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 sa tisfaction 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 Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 18 office environment is largely open and spacious with lots of op portunities 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 manage rs). 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 l atitude 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 book s, 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 en vironments 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 complaint s 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 fro m 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 incre ase 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 wor k 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 ber ated 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 Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 19 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. Moreov er, 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 ofte n 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 l aid 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 perce ptions 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 compan y 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 recommen dations 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 pl ans, 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 dis cussed 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 Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 20 employment. Moreover, in general, employees do not feel that they are valued, reco gnized, 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 relatio ns. 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, turnov er, and sabotage. Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 21 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 Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 22 Survey Ite m 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 it em 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 missi ng 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 Agre e 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 ----- ----- ----- Notes. Valid N for Theme a verages 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” response s 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 Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 23 Survey Item Results By Theme (Continued) Theme 3: Communication/Cooperation 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 c oworkers. 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 t o 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 ----- ----- ----- Notes. Valid N for Theme averages differs from item N’s beca use 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. I tem 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 Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 24 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 (%) Agr ee (%) 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, t here 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 th e 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 mis sion 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 reward s 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 ----- ----- ----- 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. Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 25 . Survey Item Results By Theme (Continued) Theme 5: Perceptions of Fairness The me 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 an d 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. 86 70 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 ----- ----- ----- Notes. Valid N for Theme averages differs from item N’s because of accumulated missing data. Survey items were rated on a 5 -point L ikert -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 perce ntages, the 5 -point scale was collapsed into a 3 -point scale (“Disagree” = Strongly Disagree and Disagree responses, “Neutral” = neutral response, and “Agree” = Strongly Agree Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 26 Survey Item Results By Theme (Continued) Theme 6 : Job/Work Characteristic s 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 au tonomy 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 ----- ----- ----- Notes. Valid N for Theme ave rages 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 “A gree” = Strongly Agree and Agree responses). Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding error. Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 27 Survey Item Results By Theme (Continued) Theme 7 : Development, Employment, and Promotion Opportunities Theme 7: Satisfaction with Promotion Opportun ities 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 e nhance 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 ----- ----- ----- Notes. Valid N for Theme averages differs from item N’s because of accumulated missing data. S urvey 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 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 ----- ----- ----- 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. Organizational Report: Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 28 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 s upervisors 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.) t hat may stand in the way of achieving our department’s objectives. 8508 2.6 57.3 20.5 22.2 40 My supervisor g ives 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 Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 29 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 fr om 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 ----- ----- ----- 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 = “Str ongly 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 Di sagree responses, “Neutral” = neutral response, and “Agree” = Strongly Agree and Agree responses). Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding error. Organizational Report: Floating Design S hipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey USM Center for Applied Organizational Studies © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 30 Walden Consulting Group Appendix A: Survey Item Results Floating Design Shipbuildi ng Employee Opinion Survey Section IV: Survey Item Results Floating Design Shipbuilding March 2012 Organizational Report: Floating Design S hipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey USM Center for Applied Organizational Studies © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 31 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 c ommunications 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 develope d 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 se rvices. 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 co ntinual 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 S hipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey USM Center for Applied Organizational Studies © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 32 Section A (cont.): In genera l, 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 cooperatio n/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 adeq uately 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 S hipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey USM Center for Applied Organizational Studies © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 33 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 rathe r 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 decis ions. 8228 3.02 29.3 34.7 36.0 Section Average 8331 2.67 ----- ----- ----- 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 n ot 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” = neut ral response, and “Agree” = Strongly Agree and Agree responses). Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding error. Organizational Report: Floating Design S hipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey USM Center for Applied Organizational Studies © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 34 Section C: In general, I believe that my supervisor… Q# Item Valid N Avg. Disagree (%) Neutral (%) Agree (%) 31 Wo uld 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 an d 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 2.9 4 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 Sec tion Average 8518 3.34 2.91 ----- ----- 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 S hipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey USM Center for Applied Organizational Studies © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 35 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 a ppreciates 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 evalua ted. 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 superviso r’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 us e 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 S hipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey USM Center for Applied Organizational Studies © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 36 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 f air . 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 satisfi ed 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 ----- ----- ----- 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. Total Average = average of all section averages. Organizational Report: Floating Design S hipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey USM Center for Applied Organizational Studies © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 37 Walden Consulting Group Appendix C: Response Rates Floating Design Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey Floating Design Shipbuilding March 2012 Organizational Report: Floating Design S hipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey USM Center for Applied Organizational Studies © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 38 Section II: Response Rates Overall Of the 10,014 surveys distributed to Floating Design Shipbuilding’ employees, 9,240 were returned to the t alden Design Group for a response rate of 92.3% . This response rate is far above the response rates of most organizational surveys. Management & Non -management Of the 9,240 surveys returned, 7,766 employees (84%) report ed 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. 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 ) Un- returned 7.7% Returned 92.3% Mgmt.

14.7% Non- Mgmt.

85.3% EX 15% N EX 7% H LY 63% F M/ SU P 11% MM/ SPT 2% VP 1% MGR / GS 1% Organizational Report: Floating De sign Shipbuilding Employee Opinion Survey Walden Consulting Group © 2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 39