High response rate to our WPA report

At Natural Sciences, 71 percent of employees responded to the APV questionnaire. That’s two percentage points higher than three years ago, but lower than the university-wide response rate, which reached 78 percent.

“Overall, the parameters look good here at the faculty. We’ve seen slight improvements in almost all areas. I’m very pleased about that, but it’s still important to dig into the details and identify areas where further improvements are needed, so we can make our work environment even better,” says Dean Birgit Schiøtt.

On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is the lowest and 5 is the highest, employee responses at the faculty led to the following scores for the main themes:

• Satisfaction and engagement (combined score for the four themes below): 4.2 (AU overall: 4.2)

• Overall satisfaction: 4.2 (AU overall: 4.2)

• Motivation and engagement: 4.1 (AU overall: 4.1)

• Loyalty: 4.3 (AU overall: 4.3)

• Willingness to recommend: 4.2 (AU overall: 4.1)

Publication of the Results is Just the First Step

When the APV results were released this past Monday, it marked only the beginning. The real work starts now. At NAT, this means that our APV follow-up group, in collaboration with FSU and FAMU, will lead the work related to the APV. The faculty management will of course also review the reports. Additionally, all our local LSU and LAMU committees will begin reading and discussing the reports. (See also: Read and interpret the WPA report.)

“There is a wealth of data in these reports. Each unit needs to dive into the results and understand what they say about the local work environment. Some findings are worth being proud of, while others require more focus and further action, which should be translated into concrete action plans no later than October 31,” says Birgit Schiøtt, and continues:

“We spend a large part of our lives at work, so of course we should thrive in our workplace. That’s why I’m disappointed to see that a larger share of employees report experiencing offensive behavior compared to 2022. This shows that workplace culture is a vital agenda, with key values such as respectful communication, recognition, mutual respect, and a sense of community. In the same vein, we will continue to work on staff development dialogues and employee development, so that we remain an attractive workplace at all career levels and in all functions in the future.”

To respect the individual units’ results and their freedom to approach the follow-up work in the way that suits them best, Birgit Schiøtt does not comment further on local results—except for one point:

“While the psychosocial work environment has generally improved, the physical work environment has unfortunately declined slightly. Parameters like noise and indoor climate are most frequently reported as unsatisfactory. This might be due to the many renovations, or perhaps a consequence of tighter seating arrangements in some parts of the faculty—or something else entirely. I hope we’re past the worst of it and expect that in many places, there will be relatively simple solutions.”

It is now up to each unit to review the reports and establish solid processes for the continued work.

“I look forward to following the progress and seeing how we can create even better conditions for our working lives,” says Birgit Schiøtt.

This text is translated by ChatGPT.