OPS Employee Survey Report 2011

2011
OPS Employee Survey
Enterprise Report
June 2011
© Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011
2011 OPS ENTERPRISE REPORT | Page 56

Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction 1
1 1 Background 11.1 Background 1
1.2 2011 OPS Employee Survey Reporting Framework 2
2. Top Line Results 3
2.1 2011 OPS Results Scorecard 3
2.2 Index Trends 4
3. Employee Engagement Index 5
3.1 Employee Engagement Index Results 5
3.2 Distribution of Employee Engagement Scores 6
3.3 Inter‐jurisdictional Comparisons 7
4. Corporate Indices 9
4.1 Productive Capacity Index 9
4 1 1 Productive Capacity Index Results4.1.1 Productive Capacity Index Results
4.1.2 Priorities for Improvement
4.2 Workplace Culture Index 11
4.2.1 Workplace Culture Index Results
4.3 Talent Capacity Index 13
4 3 1 Talent Capacity Index Results4.3.1 Talent Capacity Index Results
4.4 Leadership Index 15
4.4.1 Leadership Index Results
5. Response rates 17
6 Acting on the Results 186. Acting on the Results 18
6.1 Communication and Awareness 18
6.2 Getting More Insight 20
6.3 Action Planning Steps 23
6.4 Resources 25
7. Detailed Results 26
Part A: Employee Engagement Themes 26
Part B: Ministry Scores 30
Part C: Discrimination, Harassment, Violence 31
Part D: Workforce Profile 36
Part E: Demographic Profile 42
Part F: Verbatim Summary 48Part F: Verbatim Summary 48
Appendix: OPS Employee Engagement Model
2011 OPS ENTERPRISE REPORT |

1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The OPS Employee Survey was launched as a corporate program in 2006. Since 2007 it has been
conducted as a biennial census survey. The 2011 Employee Survey was fielded in February/March
2011. This is the third employee census conducted by the Modernization Division, HROntario on
behalf of the OPS.
In the OPS Employee Engagement Model, employee engagement consists of both employee
commitment to the organization and the achievement of its goals, along with employee satisfaction
with the organizational culture and work environment. The OPS Employee Engagement Model
id tifi i t th th t i fl l t ( A di )identifies nineteen themes that influence employee engagement (see Appendix).
The OPS also subscribes to the Public Sector Service Value Chain which links employee engagement to
organizational performance and client satisfaction leading to public trust and confidence (see
Appendix).
• As in past reports, the Employee Engagement Index is based on nine key indicator questions.
In addition to the Employee Engagement Index this report includes four sub indices thatIn addition to the Employee Engagement Index, this report includes four sub‐indices that
align with broad corporate goals. These new Corporate Indices are: the Productive Capacity
Index; the Workplace Culture Index; the Talent Capacity Index and; the Leadership Index (see
page 2).
• The new Corporate Indices build on insight gained from previous waves of the OPS Employee
Engagement Measurement Program. These four additional measures enhance the level of
bl h d dactionable insight provided.
• In this report you will first see the “Top Line” results of the 2011 Employee Survey followed
by analysis of the Employee Engagement Index. The following sections then report on each
Corporate Index, including the respective employee engagement themes on which they are
based.
• Priorities for action are identified in the context of each Corporate Index and summarized in
the “2011 OPS Employee Survey Results Scorecard”. Guidance on how to obtain further
insight regarding the results and tailor corresponding action plans is also provided.
• Detailed results are provided in section 7. These include response rates, question by
question results, demographics and other useful information.
• Community of Practice representatives in each Ministry are available to provide further
information about the OPS Employee Engagement Measurement Program and this report.
Your Ministry representatives can also support insight development, action planning and
communication strategies.

1. Introduction
1.2 2011 OPS Employee Survey Reporting Framework
The OPS Employee Survey Reporting Framework is a “balanced scorecard” that informs and supports
key corporate goals captured in the form of four Corporate Indices in addition to the overall
Employee Engagement Index. Each Corporate Index provides insight on an aspect of employeeEmployee Engagement Index. Each Corporate Index provides insight on an aspect of employee
engagement as outlined below. Each Corporate Index is in turn comprised of a set of Employee
Engagement themes associated with the OPS Employee Engagement Model.
The Employee Engagement Index measures employee satisfaction with their immediate work
environment and the broader organizational culture as well as their commitment to the organization
and the achievement of its goals.
The Productive Capacity Index reports on employees’ perceptions of their ability to effectively
provide service and discharge their duties.
The Workplace Culture Index reports on employees’ perceptions of the physical, social and
organizational environment in which they work.
The Talent Capacity Index reports on employees’ perceptions of the OPS’ ability to attract, develop
and optimize its human resources.
The Leadership Index reports on employees’ perceptions of the quality of leadership and supervision
they receive.
OPS Employee Survey Reporting Framework
Corporate Indices
• Job Fit
Themes
Productive Productive
Capacity IndexCapacity Index
• OrientationOn‐Boarding
• Performance Barriers
• Quality of Service Provided
• Support & Tools
• Co‐Worker Relationships
Employee Employee
Engagement Engagement
IndexIndex
Workplace Workplace
CultureCulture
IndexIndex
• Inclusive Practices*
• Independence & Innovation
• Recognition
• Safe & Healthy Workplace
• Workplace Morale
• Work‐Life Balance
C Ad
Talent Capacity Talent Capacity
IndexIndex
L d hiL d hi
• Career Advancement
• Commitment to Public Service
• Learning & Development
• Clear Expectations & Direction
• Direct Supervision
Leadership Leadership
IndexIndex
• Direct Supervision
• Leadership Practices
• Organizational Communication
* Formerly Fair HR Practices

2. Top Line Results
2.1 2011 OPS Results Scorecard
The following chart summarizes the OPS’ survey scores on the Employee Engagement Index (EEI) and
h f th f C t I di Th t d l t d di d t i
OPS Employee Survey Scorecard
each of the four Corporate Indices. These scores are presented on a scale standardized to a maximum
of 100 points. The individual corporate index scores move in different ranges. A lower score in a
particular index does not mean that it should be a priority over the other corporate indices.
OPS Employee Survey Scorecard
Productive Productive
Priority Themes*
Capacity IndexCapacity Index
(61.99)
Workplace CultureWorkplace Culture
IndexIndexEmployee Employee
Job Fit
RecognitionIndexIndex
(63.80)
Talent Capacity Talent Capacity
IndexIndex
p yp y
Engagement Engagement
IndexIndex
(69.21)(69.21)
Recognition
Career Advancement
(64.09)
Leadership Leadership
IndexIndex
(60.79)
Leadership Practices
(60.79)
*Indicates the top priority theme for each of the Corporate Indices.

2. Top Line Results
2.2 Index Trends
The line chart below shows the OPS Employee Engagement Index trend for 2007, 2009 and 2011. The
next set of bar charts below provides the Corporate Index scores. For each Corporate Index the OPS
2009 and 2011 scores are provided for comparison. Please note that 2011 is the first time these
Corporate Indices are being reported. The 2009 Corporate Index scores shown here have been
calculated retroactively in order to provide relative guidance.
Employee Engagement Index
100 OPS Highest Ministry Lowest Ministry
65.98
72.47
69.21
73.65
78.79
77.08
62.46
68.82
66.11
60
70
80
90
Productive Capacity Index
60
0
10
2007 2009 2011
OPS 2011
OPS 2009
p y
Workplace Culture Index
61.99
64.66
OPS 2011
OPS 2009
p
Talent Capacity Index
63.80
64.67
OPS 2011
OPS 2009
p y
Leadership Index
64.09
66.18
OPS 2011
OPS 2009
60.79
63.50

3. Employee Engagement Index
The Employee Engagement Index measures employee satisfaction with their immediate work
environment and the broader organizational culture as well as their commitment to the organization
and the achievement of its goals.
3.1 Employee Engagement Index (EEI) Results
As indicated on page 4, the OPS 2011 overall EEI score is 69.21. This is 3.26 points lower than in 2009
but 3.23 higher than 2007. While the OPS achieved considerable progress from 2007 to 2009, there
has been a decline in 2011. Similarly, whereas the OPS engagement score was on par with the national
benchmark score in 2009, it has now slipped below on five of the six inter jurisdictional EEI indicators
(see page 7).(see page 7).
The highest scoring EEI indicator in the 2011 results is “I strive to improve my Ministry’s results” (77%
agree/strongly agree) while the lowest is “I am satisfied with my ministry” (50% agree/strongly agree).
Employees have greater pride in their Ministries than in the OPS overall (70% versus 63%
agree/strongly agree). Generally, they are also more satisfied with their own jobs and work than they
are with their Ministries. Research across organizations has shown that job and work satisfaction are
typically higher than organizational satisfaction.
Trends show that all EEI indicators in 2011 are lower than 2009 but most are higher than 2007. The
average score for “I am inspired to give my very best” dropped the most (.25 lower than 2009 OPS
average and .03 lower than 2007), while “I would prefer to stay with the OPS…” dipped the least (.04)
between 2009 and 2011. Hence, while feeling less inspired to give their best efforts overall, most
employees remain firmly committed (albeit at lower levels than in 2009) to improving their Ministries’
results.
5
7
9
12
23
32
38
36
25
14
OPS Average*
2011 2009 2007
I am satisfied with my job 3.69  3.77 3.58
I am satisfied with my Ministry 3.40  3.54 3.23
Employee Engagement
Indicators (%)
5
5
4
9
9
5
22
24
21
38
31
35
26
32
35
y y 
Overall, I am satisfied in my work
as an OPS employee 3.71  3.82 3.56
I am proud to tell people I work for
the OPS 3.77  3.86 3.58
I am proud to work for my Ministry 3.92  4.00 3.77
5
7
5
8
10
8
22
19
25
32
31
35
34
33
27
I would prefer to stay with the
OPS, even if offered a similar job
elsewhere
3.83  3.87 3.60
I am inspired to give my very best 3.73  3.98 3.76
I would recommend the OPS as a
great place to work 3.71  3.85 3.50
* Average of responses based on a 5‐point agreement scale
13 20 43 34
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
(n=40,625) (n=29,052)(n=41,502)
I strive to improve my Ministry’s
results 4.05  4.24 4.04
“n” refers to the first question in the survey and will vary slightly by question
“⁻*⁻” indicates that the question was not asked in that year
“‐” indicates insufficient base size to report
↑↓ indicates statistically significant direction of change 2011 – 2009 (95% confidence)

It should be noted that the EEI and its key indicators are “outcome” oriented measures. Hence, they
tend not to be “actionable” directly but rather must be influenced through actions that target other
priority findings as highlighted in the Corporate Index Priorities (see section 4).
3.2 Distribution of Employee Engagement Scores
The OPS workforce was segmented into low, medium and high engaged employees based on their
individual EEI scores. The proportion of highly engaged employees has declined sharply since 2009.
Specifically, just over one third of OPS employees (37%) in 2011 are highly engaged compared to over
half (51%) in 2009 and 44% in 2007.
The 14 percentage point decline in highly engaged employees since 2009 has now shifted into theThe 14 percentage point decline in highly engaged employees since 2009 has now shifted into the
medium engaged (6 percentage point increase) and low engaged (8 point increase) employee
segments. The 41% medium engaged employee group is a large “swing” segment with the potential to
become more engaged if their key concerns are addressed. The Corporate Priorities (see section 4)
identify specific priorities for potential initiatives in each of the four Corporate Indices that could
improve employee engagement.
Additional insights into the reasons for employee engagement shifts are gained by exploring patternsg p y g g g y p g p
in the OPS survey results by Workforce and Demographic Profiles (Section 7). Significant declines since
2009 in some large subgroups are important to consider in action planning. For example, the largest
employment group, Bargaining Units (as self identified by staff), has seen a greater than average
decline in employee engagement compared to the OPS overall since 2009. Employee engagement has
declined more sharply for employees who haven’t been appraised in the last 12 months, don’t have
written performance and learning plans, and have initiated job changes within the last three years.
Proportion of Employees with High, Medium
and Low Levels of Engagement
37%
21%
13% 16%
and Low Levels of Engagement
2011
41%
2009
35%
51%
2007
39%
44%
Low 0‐50 Medium 50‐75 High 75‐100

3.3 Canadian Inter Jurisdictional Public Sector Comparisons
Six of the nine indicators in the OPS EE Index are also available through a benchmark national report
of Canadian public sector jurisdictions*. The results for these common engagement indicators are
of Canadian public sector jurisdictions . The results for these common engagement indicators are
compared below for the OPS versus national benchmarks (agree/strongly agree). Note that the Inter
Jurisdictional EE Index is calculated using the average of the six common engagement indicators and
that is different from the OPS EE Index which is based on nine indicators.
Inter Jurisdictional Employee
Engagement Indicators
2011 Inter Jurisdictional EE Index
Engagement Indicators
( Strongly Agree/Agree %)
I am satisfied with my
Ministry
60
50
National: 65.5 OPS: 61.5
Overall, I am satisfied in
my work as an OPS
employee
I d ll l I
72
67
64
I am proud to tell people I
work for the OPS
I would prefer to stay
with the OPS, even if
offered a similar job
l h
67
64
63
elsewhere
I am inspired to give my
very best
67
66
64
I would recommend the
OPS as a great place to
work
63
62
Inter Jurisdictional 2011 scores
OPS 2011 scores
*Reporting Jurisdictions 2010‐2011: British Columbia, Alberta, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Labrador

The national inter‐jurisdictional EE Index has decreased from 67.2 in 2009 to 65.5 in 2011 (‐1.7
points). The OPS inter‐jurisdictional EE Index has also decreased from 66 to 61.5 (‐4.5) in the same
period While in 2009 the OPS inter‐jurisdictional EE Index was just 1 2 points below the national EEperiod. While in 2009 the OPS inter‐jurisdictional EE Index was just 1.2 points below the national EE
Index, the gap has now widened.
The OPS has now slipped below the national benchmark on five of the six inter jurisdictional
engagement indicators. The most significant gaps between the OPS and other jurisdictions are on
employees’ satisfaction with their Ministries (10 percentage point gap) and with their work as OPS
employees (8 percentage point gap). These gaps likely relate to questions around Job Fit (see page
10) where perceptions of job challenge and job fit with skills and interests have declined significantly10) where perceptions of job challenge and job fit with skills and interests have declined significantly
within the OPS.
Gaps between the OPS and the national benchmark on four of the six inter jurisdictional engagement
indicators are modest, ranging from 1 to 4 percentage points. The only indicator on which the OPS is
rated higher than other jurisdictions is “I would prefer to stay with the OPS, even if offered a similar
job elsewhere” (+2 percentage points)
The OPS engagement model and EEI distinguish between employee satisfaction and commitment.
Clearly, both are required for strong employee engagement. The one item in the inter jurisdictional
engagement indicators that stands out from the rest is “I am satisfied with my Ministry” which is
rated favourably (agree/strongly agree) by only half of the OPS workforce as compared to between
62% and 66% favourable for the five other indicators. This pattern of results suggests that, relative
to other jurisdictions, OPS employees are more dissatisfied with their Ministries than with their work
or the OPS overall. Greater insight into more specific underlying causes can be facilitated through
the Ministry level reports and action planning.
Employee engagement results from the private sector between 2009‐2011 are mixed. Most
reputable sources report downward or stable trends. To benchmark the OPS, the best comparator is
the Canadian public sector since provincial jurisdictions utilize similar methodologies including
several common indicators.

4. Corporate Indices
4.1 Productive Capacity Index
The Productive Capacity Index reports on employees’ perceptions of their ability to effectively
provide service and discharge their duties. The OPS 2009 and 2011 scores are provided for
OPS 2011
OPS 2009
61.99
64 66
comparison. Please note that 2011 is the first time these Corporate Indices are being reported. The
2009 Corporate Index scores shown here have been calculated retroactively in order to provide
relative guidance.
OPS 2009 64.66
4.1.1 Productive Capacity Index (PCI) Results
The OPS PCI is the second lowest scoring Corporate Index (see page 4) behind Talent Capacity and
Workplace Culture. It has declined by 2.67 index points since 2009. This decline is consistent with the
direction of change in the three other Corporate Indices. It is also comparable with the magnitude of
change in the Leadership Index (2.71 index point decline). It has, however, declined more sharply thanchange in the Leadership Index (2.71 index point decline). It has, however, declined more sharply than
the Workplace Culture and Talent Capacity Indices which declined by .87 and 2.09 index points,
respectively.
The five themes comprising the Productive Capacity Index are positioned below on a Priority Matrix
reflecting their survey scores and relative influence on employee engagement. Based on the OPS
survey results, Job Fit was identified statistically as the top priority in this Index to improve employee
engagement.
While focusing on Job Fit as the top enterprise priority in this Index, it will be important to not lose
sight of other low scoring themes from a potential action planning perspective. Performance Barriers,
in particular, has a sharply negative performance score and presents significant opportunities for
improvement.
Higher
Score
LOW PRIORITY
Job Fit
Quality of
Service
Support & Tools
Lower
Score HIGH PRIORITY
Orientation/On‐
Boarding
Performance
Barriers
Support & Tools
Number of respondents = 40,625
Score HIGH PRIORITY
HigherLower Influence on Engagement
+ A low score in the Performance Barriers theme represents a positive outcome. Accordingly, the response scale for this theme has been reversed to position it appropriately in the graphic above
* The 2011 Index includes four extra questions that were not asked in 2009

Orientation/On‐Boarding is positioned about midway between Performance Barriers and Job Fit in
terms of strength of influence on employee engagement. It too may justify consideration from an
action planning perspective as it reflects relatively low performance and moderate influence on
employee engagementemployee engagement.
Quality of Service is the highest scoring theme and most influential on employee engagement in this
Index. From a potential action planning perspective, it is important to determine whether actions may
be called for to “maintain” or even further enhance the relative strength of this theme in the OPS.
Given the interconnected nature of Job Fit and Quality of Service identified in OPS studies, Job Fit can
also have a positive cross‐impact on this theme.
Looking more closely at the questions that comprise Job Fit (see chart below) helps identify
opportunities to strengthen the PCI within the OPS. Of the individual survey questions comprising this
theme, “My work is interesting” is the highest scoring item with 72% of OPS employees
agreeing/strongly agreeing. While not asked in 2009, the average for this question increased by .07
compared to 2007. A majority of OPS employees are also positive about the two other questions in
this theme: “My job is a good fit with my skills and interests“ (66% agree/strongly agree); and, “My
work provides me with the right level of challenge” (59% agree/strongly agree).
Still, trends show that the average scores on these questions declined significantly since 2009,
although remaining higher than in 2007.
Job Fit
OPS Average*
2011 2009 2007
My work provides me with
h i h l l f h ll 3 57 3 65 3 44the right level of challenge 3.57 3.65 3.44
My job is a good fit with my
skills and interests 3.76 3.80 3.64
7
6
13
10
22
18
33
33
26
33
My work is interesting 3.94 ‐ 3.873 7 18 36 36
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (n=40,625)(n=41,502)(n=29,052)

4.2 Workplace Culture Index
The Workplace Culture Index reports on employees’ perceptions of the physical, social and
organizational environment in which they work. The OPS 2009 and 2011 scores are provided for
i Pl h 2011 i h fi i h C I di b i d Th
OPS 2011
OPS 2009
63.80
64.67
comparison. Please note that 2011 is the first time these Corporate Indices are being reported. The
2009 Corporate Index scores shown here have been calculated retroactively in order to provide
relative guidance.
4.2.1 Workplace Culture Index (WCI) Results
The OPS WCI is the second highest scoring Corporate Index, behind Talent Capacity (see page 4). It
has declined slightly by .87 index points since 2009 which is consistent with the direction of change in
the three other Corporate Indices), but not nearly as great in magnitude of change. The Leadership,
Productive Capacity, and Talent Capacity Indices declined by 2.71, 2.67 and 2.09 index points,
respectively.
The seven themes comprising the WCI are positioned below on a priority matrix. Recognition was
identified as the top priority for the OPS in the Workplace Culture Index. It is the lowest scoring
theme in this Index. Independence & Innovation is a “borderline” high priority but has stronger
influence on engagement than Recognition. Hence, it is also important to not lose sight of its relative
i t d t iti f i timportance and opportunities for improvement.
Inclusive Practices and Work‐Life Balance are less influential than the two aforementioned themes
but score at comparable levels. Consequently, while Recognition is the top enterprise priority in this
Index, followed by Independence & Innovation, these two themes also offer opportunities for
improvement that can positively affect employee engagement.
Higher
Score
LOW PRIORITY
Co‐Worker
Relationships
Safe & Healthy
Workplace
Workplace
Morale
L
Inclusive
Practices
Independence &
Innovation
Recognition
Workplace
Work‐Life
Balance
Lower
Score HIGH PRIORITY
* The 2011 Index includes seven extra questions that were not asked in 2009

Co‐Worker Relationships has the highest performance score within this Index but the least influence
on employee engagement. Safe and Healthy Workplace has greater influence on engagement but a
lower performance score While clearly lower priorities actions may be warranted to maintain and/orlower performance score. While clearly lower priorities, actions may be warranted to maintain and/or
enhance their relative strength.
Looking more closely at the questions that comprise Recognition helps identify opportunities for
strengthening the WCI within the OPS. Of the two survey questions comprising this theme, the one
scoring lower in 2011 is: “My Ministry does a good job formally recognizing its employees”. Less than
half of employees (39%) agree / strongly agree with this statement. “I receive meaningful recognition
for work well done” is rated more positively than formal Ministry recognition with over half offor work well done is rated more positively than formal Ministry recognition with over half of
employees (53%) agreeing/strongly agreeing.
OPS trends show that while considerable progress was achieved in improving formal recognition
between 2007 and 2009 (average score increased by .32), this progress plateaued in 2011 (down by
.01). Similarly, “I receive meaningful recognition for work well done” remains significantly higher then
in 2007, and it declined slightly (‐.03) in 2011.
OPS Average*
2011 2009 2007
Recognition
My Ministry does a good job
formally recognizing its
employees
3.07 3.08 2.76
13 18 30 27 12
I receive meaningful
recognition for work well
done
3.40  3.43 3.15
12 14 21 28 25
(n=40,625)(n=41,502)(n=29,052)

4.3 Talent Capacity Index
The Talent Capacity Index reports on employees’ perceptions of the OPS’ ability to attract, develop
and optimize its human resources. The OPS 2009 and 2011 scores are provided for comparison.
OPS 2011
OPS 2009
64.09
66.18
Please note that 2011 is the first time these Corporate Indices are being reported. The 2009
Corporate Index scores shown here have been calculated retroactively in order to provide relative
guidance.
OPS 2009
4.3.1 Talent Capacity Index (TCI) Results
The OPS TCI is the strongest of the four corporate indices (see page 4). It has declined by 2.09 index
points since 2009 which is consistent with the direction of change of the three other Corporate
Indices. It is sharper in magnitude of decline than the Workplace Culture Index (which declined by .87
index points) but not as sharp as the Leadership and Productive Capacity Indices declines of 2.71 and
2.67 index points, respectively.
Of the three themes comprising the TCI, Career Advancement was identified as the top enterprise
priority in this Index. Research across organizations has shown that perceptions of career
advancement and learning and development are strongly correlated with employee engagement.
While focusing on Career Advancement as the top priority in this Index it is important to not loseWhile focusing on Career Advancement as the top priority in this Index, it is important to not lose
sight of the Learning and Development theme as it is a close second in priority and has slightly greater
influence on engagement. Actions aimed at addressing Career Advancement can also have a positive
cross‐impact on Learning and Development and vice versa.
Higher
Score
LOW PRIORITY
Commitment to
Public Service
Lower
Career
Advancement
Learning &
Development
Lower
Score HIGH PRIORITY
* The 2011 Index includes the same questions as asked in 2009

The remaining theme, Commitment to Public Service, clearly scores highest of the three Talent
Capacity themes although it has much less influence on employee engagement. This theme is based
on one survey item, “Serving the public good is a very important factor in my decision to work for the
OPS” Clearly this is an inherent strength for the OPS At the same time by its nature it is lessOPS”. Clearly, this is an inherent strength for the OPS. At the same time, by its nature, it is less
actionable than the other items in this and other Corporate Indices.
Looking more closely at the questions that comprise Career Advancement helps identify
opportunities for strengthening Talent Capacity within the OPS. In 2011, the two survey questions in
this theme, “I have opportunities for career growth within the OPS” and “I am satisfied with the way
my career is progressing in the OPS”, are rated 44% and 46% (agree/strongly agree), respectively.
Nearly a third of OPS employee don’t see opportunities for career growth (30% disagree/stronglyy p y pp g g g y
disagree) and are dissatisfied with the way their career is progressing (27% disagree/strongly
disagree). Paired with declines in the Leadership Index (see page 15) dissatisfaction with Career
Advancement may also be linked to employee concerns with organizational communication.
While trends show that both questions remain higher than 2007 ratings, both have declined
significantly in average score since 2009 (‐.13 and ‐.21, respectively).
Additional insights into career advancement expectations may be gained by exploring whether careerAdditional insights into career advancement expectations may be gained by exploring whether career
planning discussions are happening. As reported on page 41, both the number of employees who have
written performance plans and those who’ve had performance appraisals have increased between
2009 and 2011 (7 percentage points and 5 percentage points, respectively). Despite this, among those
who’ve initiated job changes, the most common reasons cited are for career advancement (58%) and
professional development (25%). Exploring employee expectations around career advancement and
reviewing exit interviews among those who have initiated job changes may provide additional insights.
OPS Average*
2011 2009 2007
Career
Advancement
I have opportunities for career
growth within the OPS        3.16  3.29 2.9913 17 27 29 15
I am satisfied with the way my
career is progressing in the
OPS
3.21  3.42 3.18
12 15 27 30 16
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (n=40,625)(n=41,502)(n=29,052)

4.4 Leadership Index
The Leadership Index reports on employees’ perceptions of the quality of leadership and supervision
they receive. The OPS 2009 and 2011 scores are provided for comparison. Please note that 2011 is
OPS 2011
OPS 2009
60.79
63.50
the first time these Corporate Indices are being reported. The 2009 Corporate Index scores shown
here have been calculated retroactively in order to provide relative guidance.
4.4.1 Leadership Index (LI) Results
The OPS LI is the lowest scoring of the four Corporate Indices. It has declined by 2.71 index points
since 2009 which is consistent with the direction of change of the three other Corporate Indices (see
page 4). It is about the same magnitude of change as the Productive Capacity Index’s 2.67 index point
decline, sharper than Talent Capacity’s 2.09 index point decline, and much sharper than Workplace
Culture’s .87 index point decline.
The four themes comprising the LI are positioned below on a priority matrix. Leadership Practices
was identified as the top priority for this Index. Of the four themes in this Index, it has the greatest
influence on employee engagement. Leadership has also been shown through research across
organizations to be strongly related to organizational performance.
While focusing on Leadership Practices as the top priority in this Index, it is important to not lose sight
of Organizational Communication as it also is a clear opportunity for improvement and a close second
in priority within this Index. Actions aimed at addressing Leadership Practices can also have a positive
cross‐impact on Organizational Communication and vice versa.
Higher
Score
LOW PRIORITY
Clear
Expectations &
Direction
Direct
Supervision
Lower
Leadership
Practices
Organizational
Communication
Lower
Score HIGH PRIORITY
* The 2011 Index includes one extra question that was not asked in 2009

Clear Expectations & Direction is a clear strength for the OPS, having the highest theme score in this
Index and strong influence on engagement. Clarity of direction is linked strongly to leadership
effectiveness and has been shown through research across organizations to be one of the mosteffectiveness and has been shown through research across organizations to be one of the most
important attributes of high performing organizations.
Direct Supervision is a “borderline” enterprise strength for the OPS. Quality of supervision has been
found through organizational research to strongly influence employee motivation and performance
and also foster positive employee relations. Hence, attention should be given to potential actions for
moving this key theme from its current borderline position to a clear enterprise strength for the OPS.
Looking more closely at the questions that comprise Leadership Practices helps identify opportunities
for strengthening the LI within the OPS. Of the five survey questions comprising this theme, the two
rated lowest in 2011 are: “Senior leaders in my Ministry make timely decisions” and “Senior leaders in
my Ministry provide clear direction” (40% and 38% agree/strongly agree, respectively).
Although trends show that considerable progress was achieved on both questions between 2007 and
2009 (average scores increased by .31 and .32, respectively), results have slipped significantly in 2011
(average scores decreased by .14 and .10, respectively). All of the other items in Leadership Practices(average scores decreased by .14 and .10, respectively). All of the other items in Leadership Practices
show similar trends over time, with results declining significantly since 2009 but remaining higher than
in 2007. The question having the greatest decline by far since 2009, by far, is “My Ministry is on the
right track in its planning for the future” (‐.26). “I have confidence in the senior leaders of my
Ministry” and “Senior leaders in my Ministry make timely decisions” have declined the least since
2009, although the decline is still statistically significant.
8 15 30 34 14
Leadership
Practices
OPS
Ministry Average*
2011 2009 2007
I have confidence in the senior
leaders of my Ministry
3.23  3.34 3.05
9
10
18
16
34
29
29
31
11
14
Senior leaders in my Ministry
make timely decisions
3.01  3.15 2.84
Senior leaders of my Ministry
are genuinely interested in the
well‐being of employees
3.12  3.21 2.86
11
6
18
14
34
37
28
31
10
12
g p y
Senior leaders in my Ministry
provide clear direction
3.05  3.15 2.83
My Ministry is on the right
track in its planning for the
future
3.14  3.40 3.06
(n=41502)(n=29052)Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (n=40625)
future

5. Response Rates
OPS Response Rate Trend
58.9
63.5
70.3
91.3 91.5
40 540
50
60
70
80
90
43.5
24.5
34.4
40.5
20
30
40
0
10
2007 2009 2011
2011 2009 2007
OPS
Aboriginal Affairs 82.0% 78.8% 49.3%
Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs 82.9% 77.0% 64.5%
Attorney General 56.2% 57.4% 50.7%
Cabinet Office 86.5% 81.1% 58.7%
Children and Youth Services 74.1% 64.5% 37.6%
Citizenship and Immigration 79.4% 87.4% 70.3%
Community and Social Services 73.3% 72.7% 44.9%
Community Safety and Correctional Services 40.5% 34.4% 24.5%
Consumer Services 78.4% 78.0% n/a
Economic Development and Trade 83.5% 84.5% 56.3%
Education 70.7% 65.8% 37.1%
Energy 69.8% n/a n/a
Environment 77 5% 79 2% 63 8%Environment 77.5% 79.2% 63.8%
Finance 78.2% 74.8% 54.0%
Government Services 80.7% 91.1% n/a
Health and Long‐Term Care 62.3% 70.9% 42.2%
Health Promotion and Sport 91.5% 85.1% 58.1%
Information and Information Technology 77.3% 84.3% 61.2%
Infrastructure 84.7% n/a n/a
Labour 72.3% 71.6% 55.0%7 .3% 71.6% 55.0%
Landlord and Tenant Board 74.6% 77.2% NA
Municipal Affairs and Housing 85.8% 84.7% 61.3%
Natural Resources 62.8% 45.1% 38.7%
Northern Development, Mines and Forestry 81.3% 61.4% 54.9%
Office of Francophone Affairs ‐ ‐ ‐
Ontario Clean Water Agency 64.2% 57.0% 35.9%
Research and Innovation 84.7% 91.3% 40.4%
Revenue 72.7% 74.8% n/a
ServiceOntario 90.2% 79.0% NA
Tourism and Culture 75.3% n/a n/a
Training, Colleges and Universities 76.3% 75.1% 54.8%
Transportation 62.9% 68.5% 52.1%

The first step in action planning is communicating the survey results to all employees. This supports
an open and transparent working environment. Communicating through multiple channels and on
6. Acting on the Results
6.1 Communicating and Acting on Results
p p g g g p
more than one occasion is encouraged. In‐person discussion with staff should be the primary means
of communication for ministry leaders and managers. This can be supplemented by websites,
OPSpedia and email.
Prior Survey Results Communicated
EE Index
2011* 2009
83%
17%
(n=32,309)(n=29,644)
Yes 70.83  73.79
No 64.96  69.27
While ministries often implement innovative employee engagement initiatives with positive impacts,
our findings suggest that many employees are unaware of what actions, initiatives and programs have
been implemented. It is important to make employees aware when initiatives are planned and
implemented, that these initiatives are in response to the priorities they have expressed through the
Employee Survey. This should be done in an ongoing fashion throughout the two year Employee
Survey cycle
( , )( , )
Awareness of Action Taken by OPS
Survey cycle.
EE Index
2011* 2009
55%
45%
2011* 2009
Yes 74.34  77.10
No 63.03  67.95
(n=28,647)(n=25,792)

The following OPS corporate initiatives were put in place in response to the 2009 Employee Survey.
The 2011 results indicate strong employee awareness of the Workplace Discrimination and
Harassment Prevention (87%) and Workplace Violence Prevention (81%) Policies. Employee
awareness of the three other corporate initiatives is sharply lower and is particularly weak with regard
Awareness of  Specific Corporate Initiatives
EE Index
2011
Workplace Discrimination and
awareness of the three other corporate initiatives is sharply lower and is particularly weak with regard
to Role of the Manager training (20%).
87%
81%
20%
22%
Workplace Discrimination and
Harassment Prevention Policy 69.85
Workplace Violence Prevention
Policy 70.19
Role of the Manager training 75.72
New OPS On‐boarding /
O i t ti P 75.45
(n=40,712)
22%
36%
8%
Orientation Program 75.45
OPS Weekly (reducing the number
of OPS‐all email to staff) 72.80
None of the above 62.17
Our survey findings reveal that those employees with the most confidence in the employee survey
results being addressed are also the most engaged. Conversely, employees who feel no action will
result are the least engaged. This underscores the necessity of creating, carrying out and
communicating employee engagement action plans. Making employees aware of an action plan will
engender trust, which can to lead to increased engagement.
Confidence that
results from the
2011 Results Will be Addressed
results from the
2011 Employee
Survey will be
addressed.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree NA
9% 17% 36% 26% 11%
EE Index: 52.84 68.55 81.53
(n=40,005)

6.2 Getting More Insight
The following eleven techniques can be utilized to add depth and greater insight to the survey results
at the ministry division and work unit levelsat the ministry, division and work unit levels.
Compare your 2011 Employee
Engagement Index score to your
previous 2009 score to assess the
direction and magnitude of change.
1. Review your scores over time
65.97
72.47
75.83
80.00
90.00
85.00
60.0060
70
80
90
65.97
72.47
75.83
80.00
90.00
85.00
60.0060
70
80
90
Identify trends over time that may
signal the need for action.
2. Benchmark your Employee Engagement Index scores against others in the OPS
Use the OPS and other Ministry Employee Engagement Index scores as benchmarks for how
your organization is doing. Significant gaps indicate the need for action. The Enterprise report
45.00
50.00
40
50
0
10
2007 2009 2010
45.00
50.00
40
50
0
10
2007 2009 2010
Employee Engagement
Indicators (%)
OPS Average*
200720092011
OPS Average*
200720092011
y g g g g p p p
allows you to see how you’re doing compared to other Ministries. The Ministry Report
provides a similar comparison for divisions. Look for “best‐in‐class” performances and
encourage divisions to share their successes with you.
3. Drill down into the nine employee engagement key indicator questions
The nine Employee Engagement
Index question scores are “outcome”
I am satisfied with my job
I am satisfied with my ministry
as an OPS employee
I am proud to tell people I work
for the OPS
I am proud to work for my
ministry
elsewhere
I am satisfied with my job
I am satisfied with my ministry
as an OPS employee
I am proud to tell people I work
for the OPS
I am proud to work for my
ministry
elsewhere
2
2
7
8
7
9
2
1
7
8
7
9
3
4
7
8
7
9
40
57
33
32
36
32
53
36
39
35
38
34
3.77 3.58 3.50
3.54 3.23 3.17
3.82  3.56 3.51
3.86 3.58 3.49
4.00 3.77 3.71
3.87 3.60 3.54
3.77 3.58 3.50
3.54 3.23 3.17
3.82  3.56 3.51
3.86 3.58 3.49
4.00 3.77 3.71
3.87 3.60 3.54
measures of the OPS Employee
Engagement Model (see Appendix).
Review the Employee Engagement
Index question scores to understand
which aspects of employee
engagement need attention: work
environment, organizational culture
or commitment I am inspired to give my very best
great place to work
I strive to improve my ministry’s
results
I am inspired to give my very best
great place to work
I strive to improve my ministry’s
results
8
11
8
8
11
8
8
11
8
39
38
40
28
19
27
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (n=xx,xxx) (n=xx,xxx)
3.98 3.76 3.71
3.85 3.50 3.38
4.24 4.04 3.99
3.98 3.76 3.71
3.85 3.50 3.38
4.24 4.04 3.99
(n=xx,xxx)
Higher LOW PRIORITY
or commitment.
4. Use the four Corporate Indices to ensure that you’re covering all priority areas
This report identifies themes within
each Corporate Index that are
Quality of
Service
ProvidedJob Fit
Support & Tools
Orientation/
O B di
Performance
Barriers
Scoreeach Corporate Index that are
priorities for action for your
organization. These themes should
become key focal points for your
action planning. Covering themes
from each of the four corporate
priority areas creates a holistic
impact on employee engagement in
Number of respondents = 4591
On‐Boarding
Lower
Score HIGH PRIORITY
your organization. While themes are
grouped under individual Corporate
Indices, many themes cross over and
influence one another.

5. Benchmark Corporate Indices against OPS/Ministry and Division scores
The Corporate Indices provide a second layer of analysis to the Employee Engagement Index.
First study the relationship among the priority themes that surface and look for how they may
be linked. Then, as with the Employee Engagement Index, look at how your organization is
doing relative to the OPS overall and other Ministries. Share your “best in class” results and
look to other ministries/divisions to get ideas in areas where they are “best in class”.
6. Drill down into the question banks under the priority themes
For each priority theme you can drill down to review your performance on each question
under the theme. Those questions with the weakest performance are likely the key levers to
improve engagementimprove engagement.
7. Look for significant downward shifts in question scores
Significant shifts in question scores
since the 2009 survey can signal an
issue needing attention. This may
have a link to priority issues already
identified, or be unique issues in
their own right.
8. Link client satisfaction and other data outside of the Employee Surveyp y y
The Employee Survey data in this report provides you with the employee perspective. Another
side of the equation is the client perspective. Relate your Employee Engagement Index scores
to your client satisfaction survey data (if available). According to the Public Sector Service
Value Chain, employee engagement and customer satisfaction strongly influence each other.
Analyzing how these two sets of data relate can provide useful information for improvements
within your organization (see Appendix for more details on this linkage).

Relate priority themes to other key survey data
There are three sets of additional data provided in this report that can be used to gain further insight .
These sets of data can also be analyzed using the Archway online tool (see 6.4 Resources).
Review the workplace profile data to
see if specific work groups responded
differently. Data including
employment group, employee
classification, occupational category,
l i d id i i h
9. Workplace profiles

EE Index*2011
69.31
71.91
65.03
200720092011
‐
‐
‐
54.70
56.69
55.74
Senior Manager occupying an SMG1 or
ITX1 position
Director occupying an SMG2 or ITX2 or
OFA1 position
Assistant Deputy Minister or Associate
Deputy Minister occupying an SMG 3‐4,
ITX3‐4, OFA2‐3 or OPP1 position

EE Index*2011
69.31
71.91
65.03
200720092011
‐
‐
‐
54.70
56.69
55.74
ITX1 position
OFA1 position
85%
85%
11%
Senior Management Level
location and tenure provide insight
about the level of engagement of
those groups within your
organization. Where there are
markedly lower employee
engagement scores it may be
necessary to adapt specific action
plans to address the needs of those
79.03‐56.69Deputy Minister
69.33‐54.70Prefer not to answer
79.03‐56.69Deputy Minister
69.33‐54.70Prefer not to answer
(n= 41,604)
2%
1%
(n= xx,xxx)
2009

EE Index*2011
69 31
71.91
65.03
200720092011
76 45
76.82
71.74
54 70
56.69
55.74Regular (Classified) Employee
Fixed Term Employee (Unclassified)
Other (not classified or unclassified)
2009

EE Index*2011
69 31
71.91
65.03
200720092011
76 45
76.82
71.74
54 70
56.69
55.74Regular (Classified) Employee
Fixed Term Employee (Unclassified)
Other (not classified or unclassified)
85%
85%
11%
85%
85%
11%
Classification
10. Demographics
Examine your Employee Engagement
Index scores related to the
demographic data including employee
d i i d lt
p
work groups.
2009

EE Index*2011
65.33
69.33
75.25
200720092011
71.77
75.30
79.94
54.70
56.69
55.74<1 yr
1‐4 yrs
5‐9 yrs
2009

EE Index*2011
65.33
69.33
75.25
200720092011
71.77
75.30
79.94
54.70
56.69
55.74<1 yr
1‐4 yrs
5‐9 yrs
8%
20%
22%
8%
20%
22%
Tenure
(n= 41,604) (n= xx,xxx) (n= xx,xxx)
69.3176.4554.70Other (not classified or unclassified) 69.3176.4554.70Other (not classified or unclassified) 11% 11%
age, gender, origin and culture,
disability, education level, and other
demographic variables. Again,
consider which demographic groups
may require attention.
Prefer not to answer
64.6370.1256.6910‐15 yrs
63.4869.9354.7016‐20 yrs
63.9370.9254.03> 20 yrs
64.6370.1256.6910‐15 yrs
63.4869.9354.7016‐20 yrs
63.9370.9254.03> 20 yrs
2009
67 0573 5854 70North

EE Index*2011
65.63
66.21
200720092011
72.52
72.40
56.69
55.74Central
East
2009
67 0573 5854 70North

EE Index*2011
65.63
66.21
200720092011
72.52
72.40
56.69
55.74Central
East
11%
11%
28%
28%
53%
14%
15%
53%
14%
15%
(n= 41,604) (n= xx,xxx) (n= xx,xxx)
11%
11%
28%
28%
Location by Region
11. Verbatim data
Once you have reviewed your priority
themes and the workplace and
demographic categories needing
tt ti dditi l lit ti
67.0573.5854.70North
65.5072.1454.03West
67.0573.5854.70North
65.5072.1454.03West
15%
16%
15%
16%
(n= 41,604) (n= xx,xxx) (n= xx,xxx)
attention, additional qualitative
insight can be found by reviewing the
comments made by employees. CAO‐
designated staff can use Archway, the
online support tool for the OPS
Employee Engagement program, to
analyze these comments. Archway
automatically analyzes and
y y
categorizes the comments made by
employees. Search comments made
by staff with lower employee
engagement scores in your Ministry
to add a qualitative layer of insight to
your action planning process.

6.3 Action Planning Steps
Building effective employee engagement requires a plan with input from all levels of the organization
including senior leaders, managers and staff. Successful plans are specific, measurable, realistic,
timely and flexible. Plans need to be evaluated, measured and adjusted as needed in a continuous
improvement process.
The OPS Employee Survey Program follows a 2‐year cycle. The steps to address results and implement
action plans (Act) are outlined below.
MMeasure
Conduct
Survey
Process and
Design
Survey
Monitor &
Report
Action Results
Employee
Survey Program
Cycle
Process and
Analyze Data
Report
Results
Select &
Plan &
Implement
Actions
Select &
Communicate
Actions
Communicate
Results &
Generate
Action
IdeasAct
Communicate Results and Generate Action Ideas
Leaders and managers can review and discuss results, compare and assess progress and communicate
findings to employees at staff meetings. The report results tell us “what’s happening” but “why it’s
happening” is best informed through management‐staff discussions. Management and staff can
brainstorm ideas to identify potential response strategies.
Consider:
Step 1
• Various audiences in your organization and develop appropriate communication strategies
• Developing communications that are regular, multi‐channel, two‐way, clear and candid, strategic
and intentional
• Scanning your organization to assess what initiatives are already underway that relate to the
priority areas identified in this report
• Assessing the actions taken in response to the 2009 results and what progress was made
• Assessing the actions taken in response to the 2009 results and what progress was made
• Deciding what current initiatives need to be continued, stopped or improved and what new
initiatives need to be started

Select & Communicate Actions
Once your team has interpreted the priority areas for your organization the next step is to define
ti d th t i t th i iti t ll t ff L i ti t
Step 2
actions and then to communicate the priorities to all staff. Leverage existing corporate programs
when they support the priorities identified for your organization. Link in local actions that align with
your initiatives to those happening at the corporate level.
Select actions that:
• Are responsive to the priority areas and send a clear message to employees that their concerns
are important and that they have been heard
• Are bold enough to clearly signal a desire to drive organizational change
• Build on but do not duplicate strategies already in place
• Can be implemented quickly and demonstrate results while longer‐term actions are being
planned
Plan & Implement Actions Step 3Plan & Implement Actions
Leaders and managers can work with staff teams to develop detailed action plans that include
measurable outcomes. Teams can be identified to implement either the entire action plan or specific
initiatives.
Ensure that:
• Teams develop detailed implementation plans that identify the activities to be undertaken, the
Step 3
Teams develop detailed implementation plans that identify the activities to be undertaken, the
responsibilities, timelines and resources for completion
• Actions include quick wins along with longer‐term initiatives
• Outcomes to be achieved are identified and the performance measures to determine success in
meeting outcomes are clearly understood
• Managers and teams are accountable for initiatives undertaken and that all involved are
properly recognized for their effortsproperly recognized for their efforts
• Initiatives are supported by providing appropriate training when needed
Monitor & Report Results of Actions
Teams can monitor and report on progress and results to senior leaders and managers. It is important
to evaluate, measure and adjust your action plans as needed and continuously communicate progress
to all staff throughout the two year employee survey program cycle
Step 4
to all staff throughout the two year employee survey program cycle.
Consider:
• The best practices that may have been uncovered and how these can be continued or adapted
to other initiatives
• How expected organizational changes may impact on your initiatives and how to manage risks to
plan completion
• A regular schedule for your teams to report results and issues to ADM and management team
• How to maintain the values of transparency, accountability and fairness in all reporting of
employee engagement actions

6.4 Resources
A) Archway Online Tool
Access to the Archway On‐Line Tool is restricted to CAO‐designated staff from each Ministry.Access to the Archway On Line Tool is restricted to CAO designated staff from each Ministry.
They are required to follow a set of protocols to ensure proper use of the tool and preserve the
principle of confidentiality.
The Archway Online Tool provides access to the aggregated responses from the employee survey
questionnaire. Automated reports for various organizational levels can be created. The Archway
l id d il d i i h d d d l i l l i l l
) d l
tool provides detailed insight needed to develop appropriate local action plans to supplement
Ministry action plans.
Customized employee engagement reports can be created down to the unit level providing that
there are a minimum of 20 respondents. Archway generates reports according to specific
themes, questions and demographic variables. Benchmark data are provided across work units
for 3 years (2011, 2009 and 2007). In 2011 Archway will also provide analysis of employee
comments.
B) ADMs Guidelines
These guidelines are intended to help ADMs effectively lead, communicate and
act on divisional results from the OPS Employee Survey to improve employee
engagement. The process outlined can be adapted to suit your Division’s
circumstances.
C) Guidelines for Managers
This document provides a guide to managers for communicating survey resultsThis document provides a guide to managers for communicating survey results
and action planning. The process outlined can be adapted to suit your Branch
circumstances.
D) OPS Manager’s Guide to Internal Communications
This guide provides suggestions on how to be more strategic and effective in
communicating with staff including a quick guide to various communications
channels in the OPS and how to use them A companion document is a referencechannels in the OPS and how to use them. A companion document is a reference
guide on communicating through the online channel.
E) OPS Pulse Survey Tool
This employee survey tool complements the biennial OPS Employee Survey. It can
be used to track progress on improving Employee Engagement in real time or to
conduct surveys for defined groups of employees not included in the OPS
Employee survey (e.g. seasonal staff). It is an easy‐to‐use web‐based survey
platform that enables any organizational unit to undertake Employee Engagement
surveys at their discretion. Its consistent set of questions aligned with the OPS
Employee Survey.
More information about existing resources and new tools as they are developed can be found on the
Modernization Division website (see contact information on the back page).

2011 * 2009 2007
7. Detailed Results
Part A: Employee Engagement Themes OPS Average
PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY
My work provides me with the right
level of challenge 3.57  3.65 3.44
M j b i d fit ith kill d
Fit
7 13 22 33 26
My job is a good fit with my skills and
interests 3.76  3.80 3.64
My work is interesting 3.94 ⁻*⁻ 3.87
My workload is too heavy 3.15 ⁻*⁻ 2.86
Job F
6
3
9
10
7
21
18
18
33
33
36
21
33
36
16
There are too many layers of
approval in the work I do 3.21 ⁻*⁻ 2.99
Changing priorities make it difficult
for me to do my job 2.99 ⁻*⁻ 2.91
9
11
23
25
26
31
20
21
21
12
Performance
Barriers
I experience too much stress and
anxiety at work 3.06  2.80 2.82
Overall, I was satisfied with the
orientation I received for this job 3.14  3.25 3.10
I h t t k t id
Orientation/
On‐Boarding
10
12
25
19
28
27
20
28
16
14
I have support at work to provide a
high level of service 3.46  3.61 3.34
The work I do gives citizens good
value for their tax dollars 4.07  4.12 3.88
My work unit is making an effort to
improve service quality 3.81  3.87 ⁻*⁻
ality of Service
8
3
5
13
5
8
25
15
20
35
35
36
20
42
31improve service quality
The service my work unit provides
meets the needs of diverse clients
(e.g. disability, culture etc)
3.93  3.92 ⁻*⁻
I have the technology, equipment,
and other tools I need to do my job
well
3.48  3.61 3.55
Qua & Tools
3
8
6
14
20
22
37
35
34
21
My physical work environment
allows me to contribute fully to my
job
3.63  3.73 ⁻*⁻
Support
6 10 23 37 24
(n=40,625) (n=41,502) (n=29,052)

2011 * 2009 2007
7. Detailed Results
Part A: Employee Engagement Themes OPS Average
elationships
WORKPLACE CULTURE
The people I work with are generally
good at their jobs 3.92 ⁻*⁻ 3.88
My work group usually completes its
assignments in a timely fashion 3.97 ⁻*⁻ 3.80
I have positive relations with my co‐

2
2
6
5
20
18
45
44
28
31
Co‐Worker Rtices
I have positive relations with my co‐
workers 4.28  4.25 4.17
My co‐workers invite me to join them in
informal workplace social activities 3.92 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻
The people I work with value my ideas
and opinions 3.91  3.72 3.70
In my Ministry the process for selecting
a person for a position is fair 2.99  2.87 2.60
1
5
3
16
2
7
5
18
11
17
19
28
39
36
45
26
47
36
29
12
Inclusive Practtion
a person for a position is fair
The OPS hires and promotes people
based on their skills, abilities and
experience
3.27  3.39 3.13
My Ministry values diversity 3.87 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻
I have the independence I need to make
decisions about my daily work 3.77 3.78 3.62
14
3
5
15
6
8
23
23
20
28
36
40
21
32
27
Independence & Innova
I am encouraged to take reasonable risks
in doing my job 3.27 ⁻*⁻ 3.12
Innovation is valued in my work unit. 3.41  3.45 3.18
I feel free to express opinions that
diverge from those of management
without fear of reprisal
3.31 3.30 3.08
I have opportunities to provide input
i t d i i th t ff t k 3.62  3.51 3.32
10
9
12
6
15
14
14
11
28
25
23
22
33
32
31
38
15
20
19
23
Recognition
Safe &
Healthy
Workplace
into decisions that affect my work 3.62  3.51 3.32
My Ministry does a good job formally
recognizing its employees      3.07 3.08 2.76
I receive meaningful recognition for
work well done 3.40  3.43 3.15
I have a safe and healthy work
environment 3.62  3.76 3.52
6
13
12
7
11
18
14
11
22
30
21
22
38
27
28
34
23
12
25
26
Workplace
MoraleH
I am treated respectfully at work 4.02 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻
People in my work unit take pride in
their work 3.96  3.94 3.80
The morale in my work unit is good 3.25 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻
I have support at work to balance my
3 50  3 58 3 38
3
3
13
9
5
6
14
12
16
19
25
24
41
38
31
32
36
34
17
23
Work‐Life
Balance
I have support at work to balance my
work and personal life 3.50  3.58 3.38
I get support for my participation in
volunteer activities in my community    3.18  3.44 3.20
9
12
12
15
24
31
32
26
23
16
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (n=40,625) (n=41,502) (n=29,052)

7. Detailed Results
Part A: Employee Engagement Themes
OPS Average
nt
2011 * 2009 2007
TALENT CAPACITY
3 16  3 29 2 99
Career Advanceme
13
12
17
15
27
27
29
30
15
16
growth within the OPS        3.16  3.29 2.99
I am satisfied with the way my career
is progressing in the OPS 3.21  3.42 3.18
Commitment to
Public Service
2 5 17 34 42
Serving the public good is a very
important factor in my decision to
work for the OPS
4.08  4.11 3.93
evelopment
7
7
12
13
21
30
29
35
31
15
I feel that I am always learning
something new in my job 3.66  3.70 3.54
The quality of learning and
development I have received is very
good
3.38  3.44 3.17
Learning and De
9 17 29 31 13
The amount of learning and
development I have received has met
my needs
3.23  3.27 3.01
7 13 26 35 19
My Ministry supports my work‐
related learning and development 3.47  3.56 3.26
(n=40,625) (n=41,502) (n=29,052)

*
7. Detailed Results
Part A: Employee Engagement Themes
OPS Average
2011 * 2009 2007
LEADERSHIP
I clearly understand the mandate and
goals of my Ministry 3.85  3.96 3.67
I know how my work contributes to the
achievement of my Ministry’s goals 3.88  4.01 3.75
Expectations &
Direction
3
3
6
6
22
21
41
41
28
30
I have a clear understanding of my job
and what is expected of me 3.98 ‐ 4.00
The person I report to is an effective
leader 3.57  3.68 3.52
The person I report to keeps me
informed of things that I need to know 3.65  3.69 3.55
Clear E
D
3
10
8
5
11
11
17
20
19
40
31
32
35
28
30
The person I report to consults me on
decisions that affect my work 3.62  3.67 3.51
The person I report to gives me
constructive feedback on my work 3.56  3.74 3.50
The person I report to makes timely
decisions 3.55  3.35 3.08
Direct Supervision
9
10
10
12
12
11
19
20
21
31
30
31
30
28
27
I have a positive working relationship
with the person I report to 4.00  4.12 3.99
I am satisfied with the quality of
supervision I receive 3.70  3.77 ⁻*⁻
I have confidence in the senior leaders
of my Ministry 3.23  3.34 3.05
5
9
10
6
10
16
16
18
30
32
29
31
41
34
13
Senior leaders in my Ministry make
timely decisions 3.01  3.15 2.84
Senior leaders of my Ministry are
genuinely interested in the well‐being
of employees
3.12  3.21 2.86
Senior leaders in my Ministry provide
clear direction 3.05  3.15 2.83
Leadership Practices
13
13
12
19
17
19
32
29
32
26
28
27
10
13
10
My Ministry is on the right track in its
planning for the future 3.14  3.40 3.06
Essential information flows effectively
from senior leaders to staff 2.92  3.05 2.74
Essential information flows effectively
from staff to senior leaders 2.99  3.15 2.89
nizational
munication
10
14
12
16
21
20
35
32
34
29
25
26
11
8
8
There is good communication between
my work unit and other units that we
are involved with
3.20  3.41 2.99
Orga
Comm
9 16 31 32 11
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (n=40,625) (n=41,502) (n=29,052)

2011 2009 2011 2011 2011 2011
Productive
Capacity
Index
Workplace
Culture
Index
Talent
Capacity
Index
Leadership
Index
7. Detailed Results
Part B: Ministry Scores EE Index*
OPS 69.21  72.47 61.99 63.80 64.09 60.79
Aboriginal Affairs 77.08  71.17 65.99 72.54 74.13 70.02
Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs 73.88  78.79 65.6 70.11 70.55 64.25
Attorney General 70.85  74.08 63.78 63.44 64.60 62.23
Cabinet Office 71.99 75.17 64.52 69.43 67.04 70.29
Children and Youth Services 69.79  73.71 63.02 64.67 66.16 61.69
Citizenship and Immigration 71.54 72.34 63.8 68.84 68.53 63.92
Community and Social Services 71.69 73.76 61.87 64.96 67.87 63.22
Community Safety and Correctional
Services 66.59 68.82 61.01 59.29 61.98 58.44
Consumer Services 74.3 72.41 62.28 68.46 68.06 64.92
Economic Development and Trade 68.93 71.16 60.8 63.73 64.41 59.96
Education 73.22  76.44 64.77 67.22 66.70 64.41
Energy 72.89 n/a 61.18 68.66 65.20 65.99
Environment 72.00  75.43 62.21 68.2 67.38 61.02
Finance 70.51  73.42 64.25 66.8 65.34 64.57
Government Services 68.97  73.55 60.01 65.42 63.89 61.62
Health and Long‐Term Care 66.64  70.61 58.92 61.44 62.20 57.41
Health Promotion and Sport 66.11  71.17 57.46 64.35 67.62 57.83
Information and Information
Technology 69.11  72.8 61.1 65.78 61.50 60.50
Infrastructure 72.18 n/a 60.74 69.08 68.44 68.13
Labour 73.44  76.52 64.54 66.76 67.05 64.29
Landlord and Tenant Board 69.04  75.09 61.43 65.29 62.82 64.34
Municipal Affairs and Housing 71.76 73.66 62.48 68.7 67.57 65.47
Natural Resources 70.5  75.71 62.94 68.27 66.43 60.55
Northern Development, Mines and
Forestry 73.18  76.73 65.73 71.42 66.83 66.79y
Office of Francophone Affairs ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Ontario Clean Water Agency 71.76 72.07 64.2 67.36 69.22 62.68
Research and Innovation 68.47  74.24 60.61 67.02 62.55 61.95
Revenue 66.46  71.85 60.95 62.32 58.65 58.22
ServiceOntario 68.72  74.17 62.94 65.23 63.81 62.30
Tourism and Culture 71.21 n/a 62.37 67.68 64.40 61.73
Training, Colleges and Universities 68.1 71.11 59.77 64.44 63.71 59.37
Transportation 70.54  72.47 62.54 65.11 66.00 61.71
“‐” A dash indicates insufficient base size to report
* Arrows indicate statistically significant direction of change 2011 – 2009 (95% confidence)

2011 Employee Engagement Index2011 Employee Engagement Index OPS: 69.21OPS: 69.21
7. Detailed Results
Part C: Discrimination
Yes
No
p y g gp y g g
EE Index*
2011 2009
57.06  58.32
72 71  75 82
2011
17%
9%
2009
14%
11%
I have experienced discrimination in my work unit in the past 2 years
No
72.71  75.82
63.20  67.09
74%
(n=41,604)(n=40,712)
EE Index*
75%
33% 29%
Was the issue(s) reported?
Yes
No
(n=5,389)(n=6,495)
EE Index*
2011 2009
56.10 55.75
57.00  59.69
58.80 58.26
2011
20%
47%
2009
17%
54%
If you have experienced discrimination, please indicate the type of discrimination
14%
5%
5%
8%
16%
6%
6%
2011 2009 EE Index*
2011 2009
Race 52.57  55.74
Marital status                                                      48.08 51.89
Place of origin                                                     51.80 ‐
Family status 49 89  54 178%
11%
4%
12%
4%
8%
6%
14%
5%
22%
11%
Family status                                                      49.89  54.17
Disability (mental or physical)                             48.12  51.16
Sexual orientation                                               52.31 54.41
Sex (incl. pregnancy and gender identity)    52.98 54.90
Ancestry 47.13 ‐
Ethnic Origin 51.49  56.69
1%
8%
3%
15%
1%
10%
5%
18%
Citizenship 43.60 ‐
Colour 51.47  54.70
Creed (religion) 52.02 54.03
Age 53.08  55.64
Record of offences 45.31 ‐
29%
29%
39%
11%
Other 58.66 58.50
Prefer not to answer 59.68 61.24
(n=5,389)(n=6,495)

7. Detailed Results
Part C: Discrimination
2011 EE Index
2011
Co‐workers(s) 57.70
Individual(s) with authority over me 52 33
43%
63%
p y g gp y g g
From whom did you experience workplace discrimination? (New Question in 2011)
Individual(s) with authority over me 52.33
Individual(s) working for me 59.04
Individual(s) for whom I have a custodial responsibility 45.20
Individual(s) from other OPS Ministries or agencies 46.98
Individual(s) from other government department or
agencies 47.48
63%
6%
5%
6%
5%
Member(s) of the public (individuals or organizations) 51.03
Other 59.00
Prefer not to answer 65.31
(n=6,495)
9%
7%
9%
50%
48%
24%
25%
17%
17%
6%
6%
4%
4%
2011
2009
52.10 63.34 72.74EE Index
(n=5,424)
(n=4,401)
Overall, the issue(s) was resolved to my satisfaction
48% 25% 17% 6% 4%2009
EE Index 53.38 66.78 73.13
(n 4,401)

7. Detailed Results
Part C: Harassment (New Questions in 2011)
p y g gp y g g
I have experienced harassment in my work unit in
the past 2 years
14%
8% d
47%
13%d
f
2011
8%
77%
EE Index
2011
Yes 58.26
No 57.30
(n=5,499)
f
2011
13%
41%
EE Index
2011
Yes 57.75
No 71.96
(n=40,712)
2011 EE Index
2011
Co‐workers(s) 59.2354%
From whom did you experience harassment?
Yes No Prefer not to answer Yes No Prefer not to answer
( )
Individual(s) from other OPS Ministries or agencies 50.79
Individual(s) from other government department or 46 09
54%
52%
6%
5%
3%
Individual(s) from other government department or
agencies 46.09
Member(s) of the public (individuals or organizations) 52.13
Other 59.39
(n=5499)
3%
7%
6%
6%
49% 23% 17% 7% 4%2011 (n=4,853)
52.91 66.43 73.26EE Index

7. Detailed Results
Part C: Harassment (New Questions in 2011)
p y g gp y g g
If you have experienced harassment, what was the focus of the harassment ?
7%
4%
2011 EE Index
2011
Race 51.74
Marital status 47 974%
3%
6%
8%
3%
8%
Marital status                                                      47.97
Place of origin                                                     51.15
Family status                                                      47.16
Disability (mental or physical)                             45.97
Sexual orientation                                               54.71
Sex (incl. pregnancy and gender identity)    52.52
47%
3%
5%
1%
4%
( p g y g y)
Personal harassment (bullying or psychological harassment) 57.77
Ancestry 51.10
Ethnic Origin 50.75
Citizenship 40.25
Colour 52.23
2%
8%
1%
21%
19%
Creed (religion) 51.76
Age 51.08
Record of offences 39.82
Other 59.09
2011 EE Index
2011
Insulting or derogatory remarks, gestures or actions 56.84
Malicious rumours, gossip or negative innuendo 56.90
62%
46%
(n=5,499)
If you have experienced harassment, what was the nature of the harassment?
Verbal aggression and/or verbal abuse 56.54
Persistent, unwarranted criticism 55.96
Mobbing and/or swarming 51.04
Isolation and/or exclusion from work‐related activities 52.99
Other 55.26
47%
42%
4%
30%
12%
12%
6%
(n=5,499)

7. Detailed Results
Part C: Violence (New Questions in 2011)
p y g gp y g g
I have experienced violence in my work unit in the
past 2 years
2011
3%
3%
2011
71%
13%
EE Index
2011
Yes 51.98
EE Index
2011
Yes 52.16
2011 EE Index
Yes No Prefer not to answer Yes No Prefer not to answer
From whom did you experience violence?
2011
95%
2011
17%
No 52.60
(n=1,010)
No 70.00
(n=40,712)
2011 EE Index
2011
Co‐workers(s) 52.16
Individual(s) from other OPS Ministries or agencies ‐
26%
14%
5%
36%
1%( ) g
Individual(s) from other government department or agencies ‐
Members of the public (individuals or organizations) 55.42
Other 53.80
(n=1,010)
1%
2%
24%
8%
8%
36% 17% 21% 16% 10%2011
43.23 56.66 63.66EE Index
(n=892)
2011 EE Index
2011
Use of physical force 47.76
Attempt to use physical force 47.93
Threat to use physical force 50 63
36%
31%
If you have experienced violence, what was the nature of the violence?
Threat to use physical force 50.63
Other 53.01
63%
16%
12%
(n=1,010)

7. Detailed Results
Part D: Workforce Profile
2011 2009 EE Index*
2011 2009 2007
Senior Management 78.93 79.00 75.714% 4%
p y g gp y g g
Employment Group
A Bargaining Unit 67.91  71.38 64.67
MCP Manager 73.44  75.36 68.35
MCP non‐manager/specialist or excluded
from a bargaining unit 71.62  74.17 69.74
Other 70.95  75.77 70.37
76%
9%
4%
7%
76%
8%
4%
8%
2011 EE Index*
2011 2009 2007
ITX1 position 76.48 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻46%
(n=40,712) (n=41,604)(n=29,129)
Senior Management Level
OFA1 position 82.52 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻
88.05 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻
Deputy Minister 92.88 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻
Prefer not to answer 71.06 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻
29%
11%
1%
14%
(n=1807)
2011 2009 EE Index*
2011 2009 2007
Regular (Classified) Employee 68.79  71.74 65.0391% 85%
Classification
(n= 41,604) (n=41,604)(n=29,129)
Fixed Term Employee (Unclassified) 73.78  76.82 71.91
Other (not classified or unclassified) 71.95  76.66 70.16
7%
2%
11%
3%
Note: Results are based on the self‐reported information
provided by Employees in the OPS Employee Survey

7. Detailed Results
Job Category
2011 2009 EE Index*
2011 2009 2007
Management & Supervisory 74.83  76.55 70.09
Human Resources 71 20  73 34 69 81
12%
2%
12%
2%
p y g gp y g g
Human Resources 71.20  73.34 69.81
Administrative Support/Clerical 71.30  74.79 69.50
Education & Training 70.56  73.99 68.15
Customer & Client Services 67.58  72.83 67.08
L d & R 69 64  75 19 66 94
2%
17%
2%
8%
2%
2%
17%
2%
9%
4%Land & Resources 69.64  75.19 66.94
Inspections & Investigations 69.23  71.80 66.68
Consulting & Planning 68.60  71.95 66.59
Communications & Marketing 69.44  73.08 66.46

2%
2%
3%
3%
4%
2%
3%
2%
Accounting & Finance 68.94  72.97 66.12
Legal Services 69.79  73.76 65.45
Information Technology 68.90  72.33 65.33
Policy/Program Analysis & Planning 69.20  71.07 65.00
5%
5%
7%
9%
4%
5%
6%
8%
Enforcement 68.93  71.77 64.52
Science & Engineering 69.53  71.99 64.38
Technical, Maintenance & Trades 68.06  70.66 63.83
Health & Social Services 66.65 67.41 59.76
9%
3%
2%
3%
10%
4%
3%
3%
Corrections 56.52  58.52 57.766%
(n=40,712) (n=41,604) (n=29,129)
5%

7. Detailed Results
2011 2009 EE Index*
2011 2009
None/NA 68.78  71.96
Occasionally (not every day) 70 54  73 51
35%
32%
32%
33%
p y g gp y g g
Interaction with Citizens/Businesses:  Face‐To‐Face
Occasionally (not every day) 70.54  73.51
Up to 1 hour daily 70.72  73.47
Up to 2 hours daily 70.76  73.04
3 hours or more daily 67.05  71.12
32%
6%
5%
4%
18%
33%
6%
5%
4%
20%
(n=40,712) (n=41,604)
2011 2009 EE Index*
2011 2009
None/NA 68.09  71.6422% 20%
Interaction with Citizens/Businesses:  Telephone
3 hours or more daily 68 28  71 96
37%
17%
11%
5%
9%
36%
18%
11%
5%
10%3 hours or more daily 68.28  71.969% 10%
2011 2009 EE Index*
2011 2009
None/NA 67.58  71.6325% 25%
Interaction with Citizens/Businesses:  Electronic Channels
(n=40,712) (n=41,604)
/
25%
34%
15%
9%
5%
25%
34%
16%
10%
5%
3 hours or more daily 69.62  73.1812% 11%
(n=40,712) (n=41,604)

7. Detailed Results
2011 2009 EE Index*
2011 2009 2007
<1 yr 77.00  79.94 75.26
1‐4 yrs 71.87  75.30 69.34
5%
18%
8%
20%
p y g gp y g g
Tenure
5‐9 yrs 69.29  71.77 65.33
10‐15 yrs 67.20  70.12 64.63
16‐20 yrs 67.78  69.93 63.48
> 20 yrs 68.37  70.92 63.93
Prefer not to answer 61.48 ‐ 62.96
21%
17%
7%
30%
2%
( 40 712) ( 41 604) ( 29 129)
22%
11%
11%
28%
0%
2011 2009 EE Index*
2011 2009 2007
Central 69.42  72.40 66.21
East 68.00  72.52 65.63
58%
13%
53%
14%
(n=40,712) (n=41,604) (n=29,129)
Location by Region
North 69.80  73.58 67.05
West 69.01  72.14 65.50
13%
16%
15%
16%
Job Changes (Within the last 3 years)
(n=40,712) (n=41,604) (n=29,129)
2011 2009 EE Index*
2011 2009 2007
None 68.21  71.64 65.03
Once 70.85  73.58 67.61
Twice 71.54  74.29 68.23
Three times or more 71.93  74.12 68.65
Prefer not to ans er 63 14  71 92 64 78
61%
22%
9%
6%
2%
62%
22%
10%
6%
0%Prefer not to answer 63.14  71.92 64.78
2011 2009 EE Index*
2011 2009 2007
Initiated by management 70.95  73.70 68.24
2%
35% 32%
0%
Job Change was Initiated by …
(n=40,712) (n=41,604) (n=29,129)
I initiated it 71.32  73.93 67.9365%
(n=15,422) (n=16,345) (n=9,966)
68%

7. Detailed Results
2011 2009 EE Index*
2011 2009 2007
Advance my career 73.78  76.45 ‐
Reduce stress 65.97 67.11 ‐
58%
8%
Reason for Self‐Initiated Job Change
57%
8%
p y g gp y g g
Have more interesting work 70.86  72.45 ‐
Have a better supervisor 67.93 68.26 ‐
Have more compatible colleagues 71.99 69.85 ‐
It was just time for a change 68.35  71.29 ‐
Professional Development 73.59  75.95 ‐
Other reasons 67.90  70.92 ‐
8%
22%
8%
1%
10%
25%
15%
8%
23%
8%
1%
11%
24%
17%
Prefer not to answer 63.24 ‐ ‐
15%
1%
(n=10,016) (n=11,017)
Are Flexible Work Arrangements Available in your
Ministry?
Are You  Currently on a Flexible Arrangement?
17%
0%
2011 EE Index
2011
Yes 71.43
No 63.05
Don’t Know 69.64
58%
22%
20%
2011 EE Index
2011
Yes 70.07
No 72.44
Don’t Know 70.16
41%
57%
2%
(n=40,712) (n=23,477)

7. Detailed Results
Are you a Member of One or More OPS Employee Networks? (New Question in 2011)
2011 EE Index*
2011 2009 2007
Yes 71.52 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻
No 69.23 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻
21%
64%
2011 EE Index*
2011 2009
Black Ontario Public Service
Employee Network (BOPSers) 69.11 ⁻*⁻
Employee Network You Belong To (New Question in 2011)
5%
Prefer not to answer 65.67 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻15%
(n=40,712)
FrancoGO (francophone employee
network) 72.14 ⁻*⁻
OPS Disability Network (DNET) 68.38 ⁻*⁻
OPS East Asian Network Group
(EANG) 72.16 ⁻*⁻
OPS Pride (lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender network) 70.42 ⁻*⁻
S th A i N t k (SAN) 71 90 *
8%
4%
9%
5%
South Asian Network (SAN) 71.90 ⁻*⁻
Tomorrow’s OPS (TOPS) 71.43 ⁻*⁻
4%
35%
(n=8,668)
2011 2009 EE Index*
2011 2009
Performance Appraisal:  Have a Written Performance and Learning Plan
Yes 70.34  73.57
No 62.35  67.19
Don’t know 68.19  73.14
83%
13%
4%
76%
17%
7%
(n=40,712) (n=41,604)
79%
20%
Performance Appraisal:  Appraised in the last 12 months
2011 2009 2007 EE Index*
2011 2009 2007
Yes 70.50  73.76 67.61
No 64.19  68.85 62.72
P f
74%
26%
64%
31%
2%
Prefer not to
answer 67.86 68.75 65.19
(n=40,712) (n=41,604) (n=29,129)
7% 6%

7. Detailed Results
Part E: Demographic Profile
Age
18%
24%
2011 2009 EE Index*
Average Age = 45 Years Average Age = 44 Years 2011 2009 2007
Under 35 69.75  74.18 68.38
35 to 44 69 05  72 06 65 39
21%
24%
p y g gp y g g
Gender
24%
35%
17%
7%
35 to 44 69.05  72.06 65.39
45 to 54 69.24  71.68 64.70
55 and over 70.82  73.90 68.12
Prefer not to answer 64.06  67.70 63.02
24%
34%
15%
5%
(n=40,712) (n=41,604) (n=29,129)
54%
39%
0%
2011 2009 EE Index*
2011 2009 2007
Female 70.60  73.75 67.49
Male 68.67  71.74 64.65
Trans‐gendered 52.60 44.22 ‐
54%
41%
0%
6%Prefer not to answer 60.68  64.10 60.66
Education
0%
2011 2009 EE Index*
2011 2009
Grade/elementary school 57 41 52 78
5%
1%
(n=40,712) (n=41,604) (n=29,129)
0%
0%
7%
7%
20%
Grade/elementary school 57.41 52.78
Some high school 73.80  80.39
High school graduate 71.52  75.03
Some vocational, tech. college, or
CEGEP 69.48  73.04
Vocational, tech. college or CEGEP
graduate 68.39  72.66
1%
1%
8%
7%
20%
8%
30%
20%
8%
Some university 69.31  72.22
University graduate 69.60  72.17
Post graduate or higher 70.30  72.20
Prefer not to answer 64.04  69.41
9%
29%
18%
6%
(n=40,712) (n=41,604)

7. Detailed Results
Part E: Demographic Profile
2011 2009 EE Index*
2011 2009
No dependent care responsibilities 70.04  73.43
Children 69.56  72.64
For Whom do You Provide Dependent Care
35%
47%
37%
46%
Elders 68.02  71.33
An immediate family member (other
than child or elder indicated above) 69.84  72.19
Friend (other than child or elder
indicated above) 65.92 65.35
Dependents with special needs 67.52  71.58
Other 71.34 72.14
12%
5%
0%
2%
2%
11%
5%
0%
2%
2%
2011 2009 EE Index*
2011 2009 2007
Yes 63.34  66.42 60.49
Prefer not to answer 64.22  68.22
Do you have a Disability?
9%
11%
(n=40,712) (n=41,604)
9%
8%
No 70.72  73.56 66.63
Prefer not to answer 62.42  65.96 60.98
11%
80%
9%
Do you Require Accommodation for your Disability? (New Question in 2011)
2011 EE Index*
(n=40,712) (n= 41,604) (n=29,129)
8%
85%
7%
2011 EE Index
2011 2009 2007
Yes 58.96 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻
No 66.46 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻
(n=4,259)
35%
59%
6%
H Y B P id d i h h A d i Y R i P f Y J b?
2011 EE Index*
2011 2009 2007
Yes 62.80 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻
No 47.83 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻
N li bl 61 70 * *
67%
21%
Have You Been Provided with the Accommodation You Require to Perform Your Job?
(New Question in 2011)
Not applicable 61.70 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻
4%
9%
(n=1,448)

OPS Employee Survey Report 2011

OPS Employee Survey Report 2011

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to OPS Employee Survey Report 2011

Similar to OPS Employee Survey Report 2011 (20)

OPS Employee Survey Report 2011