81
Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other

universities 2011

Page 2: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Background information

• The questionnaire has been developed by the universities and Varma together (under the supervision of PhD Heidi Keso)

• The questionnaire was carried out for the first time in 2010, when it was answered by a total of ca 4 700 persons (127 of these at Hanken)

• In year 2011 the total number of responses amounted to ca 12 800 (133 of these at Hanken)

• In addition to Hanken, the following universities took part in the survey during 2011:

Aalto University University of Jyväskylä

University of Oulu University of Turku

University of Helsinki Finnish Academy of Fine Arts

Sibelius Academy University of Vaasa

University of Eastern Finland Lappeenranta University of Technology

University of Tampere Åbo Akademi University

• The response rate at Hanken: 59,1 % (compared to 57,2 % in year 2010)

Page 3: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Unit/department Response rate 2011 Response rate 2010

Department of Finance and Statistics / CREF / CEFIR 58% 58%

Department of Management and Organisation 60% 65%

Department of Marketing/ CERS / HUMLOG 61% 38%

Department of Accounting and Commercial Law 29%

29 % (Accounting and Commercial Law)

43 % (Economics)Department of Economics 43%

Centre of Languages and Business Communication 59% 68%Library / Computer Centre 76% 65%

Administration, the Centre for Research and International Affairs, and all other units 60% 60%

Teaching or research personnel 55% 50%Other 65% 66%

Helsinki Campus 61% 58%Vaasa Campus 50% 51%

Rate of Respons - Hanken

Page 4: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Average per sub-category

Your jo

b

Manag in

g

Super vis

o r y w

o r k

Wor k

com

mun it y

and c

o - oper a

t ion

Com

pe tenc e

Mo t iv

a t ion

Hea lth

and l i

f e s

i t ua t io

n

T he un iv

e r sit y

' s im

age

Equa l i ty

MEAN

1

1 .5

2

2 .5

3

3 .5

4

4 .5

5

3 .5

3 .2

3 .83 .6

3 .4 3 .43 .5

3 .7

4 .2

3 .63 .5

3 .3

3 .9

3 .6 3 .63 .4

3 .5

3 .8

4 .3

3 .73.8

3

3.7 3.6 3.5 3.43.6

3.9

3.5

H ank en 2010 ( A l l) H ank en 2011 ( A l l) O the r U n iv e r s it ies 2011

Page 5: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Total average per department or unit - Hanken

Unit/department Average 2011

Average 2010

Department of Finance and Statistics / CREF / CEFIR 3,7 3,3

Department of Management and Organisation 3,8 3,7

Department of Marketing/ CERS / HUMLOG 3,5 3,4

Department of Accounting and Commercial Law + Department of Economics 3,5 3,4

Centre of Languages and Business Communication 3,6 3,4

Library / Computer Centre 3,6 3,5

Administration, the Centre for Research and International Affairs, and all other units 3,7 3,6

Teaching or research personnel 3,7 3,5

Other 3,7 3,7

Helsinki Campus 3,7 3,6

Vaasa Campus 3,7 3,6

Page 6: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Your job1. My job description is clear and I understand my goals (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1%

5%

9%

39%

46%

1%

0%

2%

10%

36%

49%

3%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 4.352, Standard dev iation: 0.759)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 4.246, Standard dev iation: 0.873)

Page 7: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Your job2. My job is suitably challenging (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 260

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2%

6%

9%

46%

37%

1%

2%

5%

14%

40%

38%

1%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 4.061, Standard dev iation: 0.971)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 4.119, Standard dev iation: 0.909)

Page 8: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Your job3. I have enough time to carry out my duties during working hours (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 260

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

14%

24%

19%

24%

19%

0%

13%

23%

18%

29%

17%

0%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.158, Standard dev iation: 1.308)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.087, Standard dev iation: 1.345)

Page 9: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Your job4. I am able to concentrate on my job without undue disturbances (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 258

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

7%

31%

23%

24%

16%

0%

10%

26%

24%

29%

11%

0%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.046, Standard dev iation: 1.176)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.102, Standard dev iation: 1.207)

Page 10: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Your job5. I have enough influence over my own job and duties (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 260

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4%

12%

24%

33%

27%

1%

2%

14%

26%

32%

26%

1%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.667, Standard dev iation: 1.061)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.675, Standard dev iation: 1.116)

Page 11: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Your job6. Changes at work do not lessen my ability to cope at work (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 260

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

7%

17%

22%

31%

21%

2%

7%

12%

26%

36%

14%

5%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.413, Standard dev iation: 1.112)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.411, Standard dev iation: 1.21)

Page 12: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Your job7. I have the appropriate tools (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1%

14%

15%

39%

32%

0%

4%

12%

15%

40%

28%

2%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.771, Standard dev iation: 1.106)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.873, Standard dev iation: 1.035)

Page 13: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Your job8. The dining and other social areas are adequate (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 258

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

6%

22%

25%

34%

12%

2%

8%

26%

26%

23%

15%

2%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.099, Standard dev iation: 1.202)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.236, Standard dev iation: 1.124)

Page 14: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Your job9. The ratio between teaching and research work is satisfactory (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 129

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

8%

28%

15%

25%

13%

10%

7%

17%

25%

16%

17%

17%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.228, Standard dev iation: 1.254)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.074, Standard dev iation: 1.257)

Page 15: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Managing10. The university's strategy is clear and comprehensible (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 260

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2%

11%

35%

37%

11%

3%

3%

10%

28%

35%

13%

11%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.508, Standard dev iation: 0.985)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.447, Standard dev iation: 0.925)

Page 16: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Managing11. The university acts openly when making and preparing decisions (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 260

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

9%

28%

36%

17%

4%

6%

8%

25%

28%

27%

3%

10%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 2.925, Standard dev iation: 1.022)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 2.765, Standard dev iation: 0.998)

Page 17: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Managing12. Employees are able to influence the university's decisions (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

8%

31%

34%

17%

4%

7%

5%

36%

29%

17%

3%

11%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 2.737, Standard dev iation: 0.947)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 2.763, Standard dev iation: 0.984)

Page 18: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Managing13. The strategy steers the activities and primary tasks of our unit (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 260

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4%

21%

35%

27%

9%

6%

4%

13%

38%

23%

7%

16%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.196, Standard dev iation: 0.948)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.167, Standard dev iation: 1.007)

Page 19: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Managing14. Men and women have equal opportunities for advancement in our unit (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2%

7%

13%

20%

50%

9%

2%

5%

12%

22%

47%

12%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 4.216, Standard dev iation: 1.037)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 4.19, Standard dev iation: 1.063)

Page 20: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Managing15. Our meeting practices are well suited for achieving the unit's goals (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

8%

17%

26%

24%

7%

18%

5%

14%

25%

26%

11%

19%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.271, Standard dev iation: 1.104)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.077, Standard dev iation: 1.112)

Page 21: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Supervisory work16. My supervisor makes sure that our goals and tasks are clear (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

8%

14%

22%

26%

21%

9%

4%

10%

20%

42%

21%

4%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.693, Standard dev iation: 1.05)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.409, Standard dev iation: 1.242)

Page 22: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Supervisory work17. My supervisor regularly carries out performance evaluations with me (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 258

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

6%

7%

14%

19%

44%

10%

2%

3%

13%

34%

45%

3%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 4.195, Standard dev iation: 0.948)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.974, Standard dev iation: 1.265)

Page 23: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Supervisory work18. I get enough constructive feedback from my supervisor (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 258

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

9%

13%

24%

25%

24%

4%

5%

14%

25%

34%

20%

2%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.523, Standard dev iation: 1.108)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.418, Standard dev iation: 1.272)

Page 24: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Supervisory work19. My supervisor trusts me (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

3%

2%

12%

32%

39%

11%

1%

5%

9%

35%

42%

8%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 4.24, Standard dev iation: 0.885)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 4.15, Standard dev iation: 0.993)

Page 25: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Supervisory work20. I dare to disagree with my supervisor (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 257

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2%

5%

10%

33%

48%

2%

3%

5%

12%

34%

43%

3%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 4.11, Standard dev iation: 1.033)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 4.244, Standard dev iation: 0.944)

Page 26: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Supervisory work21. My supervisor is impartial and fair (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 258

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

6%

6%

18%

33%

28%

11%

5%

8%

10%

32%

38%

7%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.951, Standard dev iation: 1.179)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.804, Standard dev iation: 1.138)

Page 27: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Supervisory work22. My supervisor takes the diff erences between people into consideration (for instance regarding skills, experience or abilities) (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5%

7%

15%

33%

23%

17%

3%

8%

16%

36%

26%

11%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.821, Standard dev iation: 1.064)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.752, Standard dev iation: 1.125)

Page 28: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Supervisory work23. I tell my supervisor about my ideas to develop our unit or my work (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 258

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4%

5%

14%

41%

32%

4%

4%

6%

14%

41%

33%

2%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.946, Standard dev iation: 1.041)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.959, Standard dev iation: 1.028)

Page 29: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Supervisory work24. My supervisor encourages me to make suggestions, take responsibility and develop my work (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 258

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5%

12%

12%

32%

33%

7%

5%

8%

23%

31%

30%

3%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.766, Standard dev iation: 1.126)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.812, Standard dev iation: 1.196)

Page 30: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Work community and co-operation25. Our unit is a dynamic community of experts (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 260

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4%

13%

23%

39%

19%

3%

3%

9%

30%

37%

16%

5%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.563, Standard dev iation: 0.984)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.577, Standard dev iation: 1.071)

Page 31: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Work community and co-operation26. Our unit has a positive attitude towards development (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4%

9%

21%

38%

27%

1%

3%

14%

27%

34%

19%

4%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.539, Standard dev iation: 1.057)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.76, Standard dev iation: 1.073)

Page 32: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Work community and co-operation27. The communications practices in our unit promote effi cient communication (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 260

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

13%

13%

28%

31%

13%

2%

7%

12%

32%

35%

13%

2%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.351, Standard dev iation: 1.074)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.192, Standard dev iation: 1.216)

Page 33: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Work community and co-operation28. No negative competition between individuals takes place in our unit (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 260

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

12%

21%

21%

27%

16%

3%

8%

15%

25%

33%

11%

8%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.279, Standard dev iation: 1.13)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.138, Standard dev iation: 1.276)

Page 34: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Work community and co-operation29. Our unit has a constructive attitude towards human errors (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2%

9%

24%

36%

21%

7%

3%

7%

23%

41%

18%

8%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.702, Standard dev iation: 0.98)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.703, Standard dev iation: 1.007)

Page 35: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Work community and co-operation30. We have developed eff ective processes to take up diffi cult issues for discussion (Question 2010: Even diffi cult subjects are taken up for discussion in our unit) (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 133

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

7%

12%

22%

36%

17%

6%

14%

25%

20%

16%

8%

17%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 2.764, Standard dev iation: 1.226)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.475, Standard dev iation: 1.152)

Page 36: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Work community and co-operation31. We support and encourage each other (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

6%

9%

27%

37%

21%

2%

5%

8%

32%

31%

24%

1%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.621, Standard dev iation: 1.081)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.589, Standard dev iation: 1.09)

Page 37: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Work community and co-operation32. It is easy for me to ask my colleagues for help (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 260

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

3%

4%

14%

35%

43%

1%

2%

4%

15%

41%

38%

0%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 4.113, Standard dev iation: 0.902)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 4.111, Standard dev iation: 1.006)

Page 38: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Work community and co-operation33. Rumours and gossip do not interfere with work (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

12%

19%

22%

25%

18%

4%

5%

14%

24%

30%

24%

2%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.546, Standard dev iation: 1.169)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.182, Standard dev iation: 1.291)

Page 39: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Work community and co-operation34. I have not been a target of workplace bullying or harassment at work over the past year (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

8%

4%

6%

16%

65%

1%

7%

5%

6%

14%

66%

2%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 4.3, Standard dev iation: 1.224)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 4.272, Standard dev iation: 1.24)

Page 40: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Competence35. Job introductions are handled well in our unit (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 260

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

17%

23%

26%

24%

3%

8%

10%

27%

25%

20%

8%

11%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 2.874, Standard dev iation: 1.139)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 2.718, Standard dev iation: 1.136)

Page 41: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Competence36. Experience and knowledge (skills, networks, contacts, finding financing) are shared systematically before people leave the unit (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 260

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

20%

31%

18%

13%

3%

15%

13%

26%

25%

11%

7%

20%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 2.664, Standard dev iation: 1.149)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 2.407, Standard dev iation: 1.119)

Page 42: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Competence37. My skills match the demands of my job (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 260

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2%

5%

7%

40%

46%

1%

1%

5%

10%

40%

44%

2%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 4.229, Standard dev iation: 0.864)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 4.246, Standard dev iation: 0.901)

Page 43: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Competence38. I am able to effi ciently make use of my skills in my work (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5%

10%

29%

25%

28%

2%

4%

13%

20%

30%

31%

2%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.731, Standard dev iation: 1.153)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.626, Standard dev iation: 1.148)

Page 44: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Competence39. I have suffi cient opportunities to develop my competence (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5%

10%

29%

25%

28%

2%

3%

8%

18%

32%

37%

2%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.946, Standard dev iation: 1.073)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.626, Standard dev iation: 1.148)

Page 45: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Competence40. I know what skills will be required of me during the next few years (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0%

3%

15%

44%

35%

3%

1%

5%

14%

38%

40%

2%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 4.131, Standard dev iation: 0.91)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 4.139, Standard dev iation: 0.796)

Page 46: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Competence41. Know-how is shared suffi ciently between experts (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 260

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5%

15%

32%

28%

9%

13%

5%

12%

24%

36%

11%

13%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.414, Standard dev iation: 1.039)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.234, Standard dev iation: 1.027)

Page 47: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Motivation42. My contribution is important for the success of my unit (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2%

2%

8%

43%

43%

2%

1%

5%

14%

37%

41%

2%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 4.162, Standard dev iation: 0.896)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 4.252, Standard dev iation: 0.865)

Page 48: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Motivation43. I have career advancement opportunities at the university (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 258

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

19%

30%

26%

12%

8%

6%

23%

23%

25%

10%

8%

12%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 2.53, Standard dev iation: 1.25)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 2.576, Standard dev iation: 1.194)

Page 49: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Motivation44. I gain incentive from the rewards and personal recognition I get from my unit (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 257

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

28%

28%

25%

8%

3%

7%

24%

29%

20%

13%

6%

8%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 2.434, Standard dev iation: 1.206)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 2.243, Standard dev iation: 1.089)

Page 50: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Motivation45. I am able to work independently and freely (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2%

4%

13%

29%

52%

0%

1%

2%

7%

42%

49%

0%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 4.368, Standard dev iation: 0.743)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 4.27, Standard dev iation: 0.942)

Page 51: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Motivation46. My tasks are interesting and challenging (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2%

7%

14%

37%

40%

0%

2%

3%

17%

36%

41%

0%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 4.113, Standard dev iation: 0.951)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 4.04, Standard dev iation: 1.023)

Page 52: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Motivation47. My work allows me to be inventive/creative (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4%

6%

14%

37%

40%

0%

2%

7%

15%

39%

37%

0%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 4.015, Standard dev iation: 1.0)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 4.024, Standard dev iation: 1.062)

Page 53: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Motivation48. I get a suffi cient amount of constructive feedback at work (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 258

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

6%

16%

35%

25%

17%

1%

8%

12%

35%

30%

14%

2%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.29, Standard dev iation: 1.113)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.298, Standard dev iation: 1.126)

Page 54: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Motivation49. I get support in commercializing and developing a business based on my findings (if this statement does not apply to you, select "no opinion") (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 133

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

11%

8%

5%

5%

2%

70%

13%

3%

7%

6%

1%

70%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 2.333, Standard dev iation: 1.354)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 2.263, Standard dev iation: 1.284)

Page 55: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Motivation50. I get support in finding project financing (if this statement does not apply to you, select "no opinion") (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 133

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

8%

13%

13%

19%

16%

32%

6%

6%

20%

14%

24%

30%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.653, Standard dev iation: 1.267)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.326, Standard dev iation: 1.34)

Page 56: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Health and life situation51. I feel I have a good mental work capacity (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 260

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0%

3%

19%

38%

39%

1%

1%

2%

11%

49%

36%

2%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 4.191, Standard dev iation: 0.776)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 4.143, Standard dev iation: 0.836)

Page 57: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Health and life situation52. I feel I have a good physical work capacity (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 258

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1%

6%

19%

41%

33%

1%

2%

4%

12%

49%

33%

1%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 4.091, Standard dev iation: 0.86)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 4.0, Standard dev iation: 0.911)

Page 58: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Health and life situation53. Retirement plans are discussed openly in my unit (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

21%

16%

19%

11%

5%

29%

24%

20%

12%

11%

8%

26%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 2.444, Standard dev iation: 1.349)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 2.489, Standard dev iation: 1.247)

Page 59: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Health and life situation54. My unit is prepared to accommodate people with reduced work capacity (in terms of working hours or tasks) (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 260

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

8%

13%

11%

17%

13%

39%

5%

8%

13%

24%

13%

38%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.537, Standard dev iation: 1.167)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.205, Standard dev iation: 1.342)

Page 60: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Health and life situation55. My unit takes the necessary measures in terms of following up on sick leaves (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

6%

6%

12%

11%

6%

59%

4%

7%

11%

8%

9%

62%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.314, Standard dev iation: 1.288)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.154, Standard dev iation: 1.258)

Page 61: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Health and life situation56. The occupational health-care services support the well-being of the personnel (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

3%

4%

11%

39%

20%

23%

3%

7%

13%

33%

22%

23%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.824, Standard dev iation: 1.066)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.888, Standard dev iation: 0.983)

Page 62: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Health and life situation57. The co-operation between HR, supervisors and OHS works smoothly (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 260

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

6%

6%

9%

25%

5%

48%

2%

8%

14%

20%

8%

50%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.448, Standard dev iation: 1.063)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.303, Standard dev iation: 1.176)

Page 63: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

The university's image58. The quality of research in our unit (1 = Poor, 5 = Good)Question answered by: 258

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

3%

9%

11%

21%

16%

40%

2%

5%

13%

23%

17%

41%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.808, Standard dev iation: 1.033)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.632, Standard dev iation: 1.176)

Page 64: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

The university's image59. The quality of teaching in our unit (1 = Poor, 5 = Good)Question answered by: 258

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0%

2%

6%

41%

20%

32%

0%

1%

8%

36%

21%

35%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 4.163, Standard dev iation: 0.684)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 4.151, Standard dev iation: 0.678)

Page 65: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

The university's image60. Our unit's success in acquiring external financing (1 = Poor, 5 = Good)Question answered by: 258

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4%

9%

18%

16%

14%

41%

4%

6%

12%

17%

20%

42%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.727, Standard dev iation: 1.221)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.44, Standard dev iation: 1.188)

Page 66: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

The university's image61. The university's image as an employer (1 = Poor, 5 = Good)Question answered by: 258

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2%

14%

32%

29%

11%

12%

2%

12%

24%

38%

8%

17%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.468, Standard dev iation: 0.923)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 3.373, Standard dev iation: 0.985)

Page 67: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

The university's image62. The university's attractiveness to students (1 = Poor, 5 = Good)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0%

2%

14%

43%

24%

18%

0%

3%

20%

50%

14%

13%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 3.853, Standard dev iation: 0.713)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 4.077, Standard dev iation: 0.733)

Page 68: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Equality63. Equality between genders is realized in my unit. (1 = Disagree completely, 5 = Agree completely)Question answered by: 259

1

2

3

4

5

No opinion

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2%

3%

13%

23%

47%

13%

4%

4%

10%

19%

52%

11%

Hanken 2011 (All) (Mean: 4.265, Standard dev iation: 1.094)

Hanken 2010 (All) (Mean: 4.234, Standard dev iation: 1.009)

Page 69: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Your job

1 . My j ob descr i p ti on i s c l e a r and I unde rstand my go a l s

2 . My j ob i s su i tab l y cha l l eng ing

3 . I have e noug h ti me to ca rry ou t my du ti es du r i ng wo rk i ng hou rs

4 . I am ab l e to concen tra te on my j ob w i th ou t undu e d i s tu rban ce s

5 . I have e noug h i n fl u ence o ve r my o wn j ob and du ti es

6 . Cha nges a t wo rk do n o t l essen my ab i l i ty to cope a t wo rk

7 . I have the app rop r i a te too l s

1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5

4 .246

4 .119

3 .087

3 .102

3 .675

3 .411

3 .873

4 .352

4 .061

3 .158

3 .046

3 .667

3 .413

3 .771

Han ke n 20 11 (Al l ) Han ke n 20 10 (Al l )

Page 70: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Your job

8 . The d i n i ng and o the r soc ia l a rea s a re a dequa te

9 . The ra ti o b e twee n teach in g an d resea rch wo rk i s sa ti s facto ry

1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5

3 .236

3 .074

3 .099

3 .228

Han ke n 20 11 (Al l ) Han ke n 20 10 (Al l )

Page 71: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Managing

10 . Th e un i ve rs i ty 's s tra tegy i s c l ea r a nd comprehe nsib l e

11 . Th e un i ve rs i ty a cts open l y wh en making and p repa r i ng dec i s i o ns

12 . Emp loyees a re ab le to i n fl uence the un i ve rs i ty 's dec i s i o ns

13 . Th e s tra tegy s te e rs the acti v i t i es and p r ima ry ta sks o f ou r un i t

14 . Men and wome n ha ve equ a l oppo r tun i t i es fo r a dva nceme n t i n ou r un i t

15 . Ou r me e ti n g p ra cti ces a re we l l su i ted fo r a ch iev in g the u n i t 's goa l s

1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5

3 .447

2 .765

2 .763

3 .167

4 .19

3 .077

3 .508

2 .925

2 .737

3 .196

4 .216

3 .271

Han ke n 20 11 (Al l ) Han ke n 20 10 (Al l )

Page 72: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Supervisory work

16 . My supe rv i so r makes su re tha t ou r goa l s and ta sks a re c l ea r

17 . My supe rv i so r reg u la r l y ca rr i es ou t pe r fo rmance eva l ua ti ons w i th me

18 . I ge t en ough co nstructi ve fee dback fro m my supe rv i so r

19 . My supe rv i so r trusts me

20 . I da re to d i sag re e w i th my supe rv i so r

21 . My supe rv i so r i s impa r ti a l and fa i r

22 . My supe rv i so r takes th e d i ffe rences be tween peo p le i n to con si de ra ti on ( fo r i nstance rega rd i ng sk i l l s , exp e r i en ce o r ab i l i t i e s)

1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5

3 .409

3 .974

3 .418

4 .15

4 .244

3 .804

3 .752

3 .693

4 .195

3 .523

4 .24

4 .11

3 .951

3 .821

Han ke n 20 11 (Al l ) Han ke n 20 10 (Al l )

Page 73: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Supervisory work

23 . I te l l my sup e rv i so r abou t my i deas to de ve lop ou r u n i t o r my wo rk

24 . My supe rv i so r e ncou rages me to make suggesti ons, take responsib i l i ty an d de ve l op my wo rk

1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5

3 .959

3 .812

3 .946

3 .766

Han ke n 20 11 (Al l ) Han ke n 20 10 (Al l )

Page 74: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Work community and co-operation

25 . Ou r un i t i s a d yn ami c commun i ty o f expe r ts

26 . Ou r un i t ha s a p os i ti ve a tti tude towa rd s deve l opmen t

27 . Th e commu n ica ti ons p ra cti ces i n ou r un i t p ro mo te e ffi c i en t commun i ca ti on

28 . No neg a ti ve comp e ti t i on be tween i n d i v i du a l s takes p l ace i n ou r un i t

29 . Ou r un i t ha s a con structi ve a tt i tud e towa rds h uma n e rro rs

30 . We have deve lo ped e ffe cti ve p rocesses to take u p d i ff i cu l t i ssues fo r d i scu ss io n . (Questi o n 20 10 : Even d i ff i cu l t sub je cts a re taken up fo r d i scuss io n i n ou r un i t.)

31 . We suppo r t and encou ra ge e ach o the r

1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5

3 .577

3 .76

3 .192

3 .138

3 .703

3 .475

3 .589

3 .563

3 .539

3 .351

3 .279

3 .702

2 .764

3 .621

Han ke n 20 11 (Al l ) Han ke n 20 10 (Al l )

Page 75: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Work community and co-operation

32 . It i s easy fo r me to ask my co l l eague s fo r h e lp

33 . Ru mou rs a nd g ossi p d o no t i n te r fe re w i th wo rk

34 . I have no t been a ta rge t o f wo rkp l ace bu l l y i ng o r ha rassmen t a t w o rk ove r the past yea r

1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5

4 .111

3 .182

4 .272

4 .113

3 .546

4 .3

Han ke n 20 11 (Al l ) Han ke n 20 10 (Al l )

Page 76: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Competence

35 . Job i n troducti ons a re hand led we l l i n ou r un i t

36 . Expe r i en ce and know l edge (sk i l l s , ne two rks, con tacts , f i nd ing fi n anc ing ) a re sha re d systema ti ca l l y b e fo re peo p le l eave the un i t

37 . My sk i l l s ma tch the d ema nds o f my j ob

38 . I am ab le to e ffi c i en tl y make u se o f my sk i l l s i n my wo rk

39 . I have su ffi c i en t opp o r tun i ti es to deve l op my compe tence

40 . I know wha t sk i l l s w i l l be requ i red o f me du r i ng th e ne xt few yea rs

41 . Know-ho w i s sh a red su ffi c i en tl y be tween expe r ts

1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5

2 .718

2 .407

4 .246

3 .626

3 .626

4 .139

3 .234

2 .874

2 .664

4 .229

3 .731

3 .946

4 .131

3 .414

Han ke n 20 11 (Al l ) Han ke n 20 10 (Al l )

Page 77: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Motivation

42 . My con tr i bu ti on i s impo r tan t fo r the success o f my un i t

43 . I have ca re e r ad van ce men t o ppo r tu n i t i es a t the u n i ve rs i ty

44 . I ga i n i ncen ti ve fro m the rewa rds an d pe rson a l re co gn i t i on I ge t from my un i t

45 . I am ab le to w o rk i nd epend en tl y and free l y

46 . My tasks a re i n te resti n g an d cha l l en g ing

47 . My wo rk a l l ows me to be i nven ti ve /crea ti ve

48 . I ge t a su ffi c i en t amoun t o f constru cti ve feedb ack a t wo rk

1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5

4 .252

2 .576

2 .243

4 .27

4 .04

4 .024

3 .298

4 .162

2 .53

2 .434

4 .368

4 .113

4 .015

3 .29

Han ke n 20 11 (Al l ) Han ke n 20 10 (Al l )

Page 78: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Motivation

49 . I ge t suppo r t i n comme rc i a l i z i ng a nd d eve lop ing a b usi ness ba se d on my fi nd i ngs ( i f th i s s ta temen t does no t app l y to you , se lect "no o p in i on ")

50 . I ge t suppo r t i n f i nd i ng p ro ject f i nanc in g ( i f th i s s ta temen t doe s no t app l y to you , se lect "no op in i on ")

1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5

2 .263

3 .326

2 .333

3 .653

Han ke n 20 11 (Al l ) Han ke n 20 10 (Al l )

Page 79: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Health and life situation

51 . I fe e l I ha ve a good me n ta l wo rk cap aci ty

52 . I fe e l I ha ve a good phys i ca l wo rk capaci ty

53 . Re ti remen t p l ans a re d i scussed o pen l y i n my u n i t

54 . My un i t i s p repa re d to accommod a te peop le w i th redu ce d wo rk cap aci ty ( i n te rms o f wo rk i ng h ou rs o r tasks)

55 . My un i t takes th e ne ce ssa ry measu res i n te rms o f fo l l ow i ng u p on s i ck l ea ve s

56 . Th e occupa ti on a l hea l th -ca re se rv i ces sup po r t the we l l -be in g o f the p e rso nne l

57 . Th e co -ope ra ti o n be twee n HR, supe rv i so rs a nd OH S works smoo th l y

1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5

4 .143

4

2 .489

3 .205

3 .154

3 .888

3 .303

4 .191

4 .091

2 .444

3 .537

3 .314

3 .824

3 .448

Han ke n 20 11 (Al l ) Han ke n 20 10 (Al l )

Page 80: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

The university's image

58. The quality of research in our unit

59. The quality of teaching in our unit

60. Our unit 's success in acquir ing ex ternal f inanc ing

61. The univers ity 's image as an employer

62. The univers ity 's attrac tiveness to s tudents

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

3.632

4.151

3.44

3.373

4.077

3.808

4.163

3.727

3.468

3.853

Hanken 2011 (All) Hanken 2010 (All)

Page 81: Questionnaire on well-being at work – Hanken 2010 and 2011 compared to other universities 2011

Equality

63. Equal i ty between genders is real ized in my uni t.

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

4.234

4.265

Hanken 2011 (Al l ) Hanken 2010 (Al l )