EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY

October 2012


Report




Smart Frontiers
Prepared and submitted by Smart Frontiers
P.O. Box 6169 00100, Nairobi, Kenya
smart@africaresearchinfo.net
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
ii


Acknowledgements


This study was undertaken by Smart Frontiers. We would like to thank everyone who contributed the
various aspects towards the realization of this survey. We wish to convey thanks to the staff of KFS for
their enthusiastic help in conducting this assessment: Abraham Wafula and Eric Wainaina greatly
appreciative to the persons of the invaluable advice in relation to the consultative discussion that provided
critical support and direction during the course of data collection. Special thanks are also extended to the
data collection and data entry teams for their due dedication and commitment throughout the data
collection and data entry process.

Finally, and most important, appreciation is extended to the KFS stakeholder group who willingly
participated in the survey and for providing the valuable information that is the outcome of this report.
Smart Frontiers however solely remain responsible for any of the errors that may remain.


Consultancy team

June 2012

KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
iii


Abbreviations and Acronyms

DK Dont Know
GoK Government of Kenya
ENCOM Enforcement and Compliance Division
ESI Employ Satisfaction Index
ESS Employ Satisfaction Survey
KFC Kenya Forest College
KFC Kenya Forest Service
NR No Response
PC Performance Contracts
RBM Result Based Management
SD Standard Deviation
SPSS Statistical Products and Services Solutions

KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
iv

Table of Contents


List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... vi
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1
Section 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Background 3
1.2 This Survey 4
1.2.1 Research strategy ............................................................................................ 4
1.2.2 Target Segments of the survey ....................................................................... 4
1.2.3 Geographical scope......................................................................................... 5
1.2.4 Sampling technique ......................................................................................... 5
1.2.5 Sample distribution ......................................................................................... 6
1.2.6 Characteristics of the sample ......................................................................... 7
Section 2: The Forest Sector in Kenya .................................................................................. 8
2.1 The Kenya Forest Service 8
2.2 Situation analysis of the forest sector 9
2.2.1 Economic importance and role towards Vision 2030 .................................. 10
2.2.2 Challenges ..................................................................................................... 11
Section 3: Results and Discussion ........................................................................................... 12
3.1 Overall Performance 12
3.1.1 Employee satisfaction index ......................................................................... 12
3.1.2 Performance gaps ......................................................................................... 13
3.2 Employee perceptions of service delivery dimensions 15
3.2.1 Communication and delivery of organizational mandate ........................... 15
3.2.2 Leadership and management ....................................................................... 16
3.2.3 Communication and engagement ................................................................. 17
3.2.4 Teamwork ....................................................................................................... 18
3.2.5 Recruitment, discipline and promotion practices ....................................... 19
3.2.6 Staff training and development .................................................................... 20
3.2.7 Supervision .................................................................................................... 21
3.2.8 Remuneration and benefits ........................................................................... 22
3.2.9 Relationship with co-workers ....................................................................... 23
3.2.10 Recognition .................................................................................................. 24
3.2.11 Performance appraisal ......................................................................................... 25
3.3 Factors employee driving satisfaction 25
3.3.1 Factors that underline employee satisfaction ............................................. 25
3.4 Promise of loyalty 28
3.4.1 Intent to continue working with KFS ............................................................ 28
3.4.2 Willingness to continue working at same facility/station ........................... 29
3.4.3 Willingness to recommend KFS as a good place to work in ...................... 30
3.5 Outlook on change in KFS over time 31
3.5.1 Employee perceptions of improvements over time..................................... 31
3.5.2 Suggestions for improvement ...................................................................... 32
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 33
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
v
List of Figures


Fig 3.1: Satisfaction with KFS on communication and delivery of organizational
mandate 16
Fig 3.2: Satisfaction with KFS on leadership and management 17
Fig 3.3: Satisfaction with communication and engagement 18
Fig 3.4: Satisfaction with teamwork 19
Fig 3.5: Satisfaction with recruitment, discipline and promotion practices 20
Fig 3.6: Satisfaction with staff training and development 21
Fig 3.7: Satisfaction with supervision 22
Fig 3.8: Satisfaction with remuneration and benefits 23
Fig 3.9: Satisfaction with relationship with co-workers 24
Fig 3.10: Satisfaction with recognition 24
Fig 3.11: Satisfaction with recognition 25
Fig. 3.12: Contribution of factors to satisfaction 28
Fig. 3.13: Overall inclination to look for another job 29
Fig. 3.14: Overall willingness to continue working at the same station 30
Fig. 3.15: Overall willingness to recommend KFS as a good place to work in 31
Fig. 3.16: Perceptions of change over time 31





KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
vi


List of Tables


Table 1.1: Sample distribution by conservancy 6
Table 1.2: Sample characteristics 7
Table 2.1: Level of forest coverage between 1990 and 2010 11
Table 3.1: Employee Satisfaction Index 12
Table 3.2: Satisfaction gaps across the service delivery dimensions 12
Table 3.2: Satisfaction gaps across the service delivery dimensions 14
Table 3.3: Satisfaction gaps across the service delivery dimensions by
conservancy 15
Table 3.4: Factors that underline employee satisfaction 27
Table 3.5: Suggestions for improvement 32


KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
1



Executive Summary


This survey was conducted during the month of June by Smart Frontiers in the framework of
Performance Contracts to assess the quality of service delivery to the employees of Kenya Forest
Service and its constituent college, Kenya Forest College. In this way, the survey sought to establish
whether KFS is meeting its service expectations. The findings presented in this report highlight the key
issues emerging, and ultimately, the actions required to enhance employee satisfaction levels.

Key highlights of the survey findings are as follows:

Employee satisfaction index
The overall ESI was calculated to be 61.64. Across the ten service delivery dimensions, the index scores
are in the range between 52 and 77 points. The dimension of Immediate supervisor ranked the highest
(77.5), and conversely, the lowest ESI figures apparent in respect to relationship with co-workers
(52.53) and remuneration and benefits (53.42)

Satisfaction gaps
In terms of satisfaction gaps, the results depict overall average gap of -1.31. Overall performance
expectation among the employees depicts an average score of 4.62, and overall satisfaction levels depict
an average score of 3.42. Looking at satisfaction gaps, the results show that, relative to employee
expectations, the performance of KFS is deemed weakest in respect to the following three dimensions:
relationship with co-workers (-2.07), remuneration and benefits (-1.88) and recruitment and promotion
(-1.75). On the other hand, relative to employee expectations, the performance of KFS is deemed to be
most strong in respect to four dimensions: staff training and development (-1.64), immediate supervisor
(-0.38), communication and delivery of mandate (0.72) and performance appraisal (-0.81).

Satisfaction drivers
On the basis of PCA, the data does indicate employee satisfaction is based on three platforms: The
leading factor, interpreted as Receptivity and communication, accounted for 28.73% of the variance.
This factor constitutes a large set of eleven items that are essentially related to the openness and
affability of the management system. The second factor, Staff development system accounted for 20.90%
of the variance. This factor comprised seven items that are primarily related to career, training and
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
2
disciplinary issues. This can be interpreted as Alignment of corporate strategies, and accounted for
18.96% of the variance. As seen, this factor was defined by KFSs apparent strategic focus on its core
area of business.

Outlook on change in KFS over time
It is observed that about half of participants (57%) had a positive view, and conversely just above one-
quarter (26%) being unequivocally negative. Providing further opportunity for the participants to offer
suggestions for improvement on the job and work environment dimensions as a whole, the comments
obtained covered a broad range, with the highest number pointing to work overload concern, reflected
in the need to employ more staff, particularly rangers (26%), followed by resource and financing
concerns (11%). Other notable mention was opportunities for staff training and development (6%).

Lastly, on the basis of the survey findings, the following are suggested as ways to address areas where
there are gaps in service delivery.
1. Co-worker relations: Enhance co-worker relations through intra and inter-departmental social
activities among the staff
2. Training and development: Address staff training and development issues, with specific focus
on the following two areas: first, is the need to provide information on staff training
opportunities to build confidence on the nomination procedures; second, staff should provide
input into areas where they are in need of training,
3. Promotions: The Human Resource function needs to provide clear specifications of the staff
grading system and streamline staff promotion system
4. Communication: Although communication does not expressly emerge as an area of concern,
there is need to map out specific corporate measures that address negative perceptions,
particularly concerning recruitment and promotion, corruption and so on










KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
3



Section 1: Introduction


1.1 Background


The Government of Kenya (GoK) has embraced the Result Based Management (RBM) as a tool to
improving public service delivery. The essence of RBM is to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in the
delivery of public services, and that citizens can hold public servants accountable for the levels of
service they receive from public institutions. This is in line with Kenyas public service accountability
initiative known as Performance Contracts (PC), which was introduced in 2003, and which is expected
to support the goals and objectives outlined in Kenyas Vision 2030 strategy.
1
The PC initiative forms
the basis of improvement in the public service delivery, which seeks to progressively work towards
increasing quality of output within public institutions.

Under these broader public sector reforms, the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) aims to ensure that services
are enhanced to the satisfaction of its customers and excellence is attained in its operations. In
complement to this Reform Agenda, one pillar in this move is to monitor the level of satisfaction of both
the internal and external stakeholders.

Thus, in pursuit of ensuring that services are enhanced to the satisfaction of its customers, KFS
commissioned a survey with a view to gain insights into the satisfaction with and perceptions of its
services. The outcomes are intended to assist the KFS to align management and directorial processes
with employee and customer expectations in order to facilitate greater performance. This survey
generally focuses on the KFS Service Delivery Charters on the key performance indicators.



1
Muthaura, F., (2003), Head of Public Service
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
4
1.2 This Survey


The broader motivation underpinning this Employee Satisfaction Survey (ESS) was to assess the quality
of service delivery to the employees of KFS and its constituent college, Kenya Forest College (KFC). In
this way, the survey sought to establish whether KFS is meeting its service expectations.

To that regard, the specific objectives of the survey comprised the following:
1. Develop a composite measure of staff satisfaction by use of Employee Satisfaction Index
(ESI), and use it to determine the overall rating of the current level of staff satisfaction;
2. Find out staff perception of the job dimensions;
3. Identify satisfaction gaps across various aspects of the job;
4. Identify specific areas that require improvement.


1.2.1 Research strategy


The general strategy involved a blend of techniques to maximize exposure to evidence. The preliminary
tasks involved a review of existing data and literature. One important goal was to evaluate how KFS has
performed in terms of service delivery over the past years. The previous survey approach and findings
were partly fed into the primary research in order to allow for tracking and comparison on a number of
aspects. The sources reviewed included the following:

Previous customer and employee satisfaction survey reports
KFS Service Charter
Strategic Plan
Other documents


1.2.2 Target Segments of the survey


As aforementioned, the target segments of this ESS consisted of all employees of KFS, including the
employees of KFC.



KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
5
1.2.3 Geographical scope


It was generally recognized here that in order to obtain breadth of perspectives, the data collected should
represent a range of locations across the country. Working with three zones per conservancy (exception
being Nairobi, Ewaso North and North Eastern), the survey had a total coverage of 24 zones. While it
would be of interest to include more zones, the cost of so doing and the logistical requirements involved
would outweigh its potential value. These zones are nonetheless selected to reflect differences in terms
of in terms of geographical location, socio-economic diversities and size of conservancies, and can thus
reflect representativeness to that regard.

1.2.4 Sampling technique


The study population of this survey consisted of all KFS employees, including the staff of Kenya Forest
College (KFC). The sampling frame used was therefore constituted a-priori list of employees obtained
from KFS to build an estimate of staff distribution.

In distributing the sample, due consideration was given to employee diversity in terms of geographical
location (zones). To achieve this, a three-stage cluster sampling design was employed; this entailed the
following stages:

i. First stage: census selection of all the 10 conservancies, plus Londiani Kenya Forest College
(KFC).
ii. Second stage: Unequal selection probabilities of the Zones, with three Zones being selected in
each Conservancy. Technically speaking, it would not be feasible to employee equal selection
probabilities of the zones due to the small number of Zones in each conservancy. However,
given the relatively higher heterogeneity levels, this was not likely to compromise
representation.
iii. Third stage Unequal selection probabilities of the Forest Stations. Again, unequal selection
probabilities was undertaken due to the small number of Stations in each Zone, and to ensure
that diversity in terms of location and size is reflected
iv. Fourth stage: Census-based approach for selection of survey participants at station level. On this
account, the survey provided opportunity to all employees in the respective stations to respond
to the questionnaire. However, given that not all employees would be available or willing to
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
6
participate in the survey, it was anticipated that at least 50% to 60% would be reached
approximately 600 employees. This calculation is determined using hit rates of 60%.

Data collection involved the use of self-completion approach by the employees. To enhance anonymity,
personal details (name, employee number etc.) were not be required, but their personal details in terms
of age, department, gender and number of years in service were essential. Self-completion approach was
deemed ideal since:
It eliminates interviewer bias as an employee administers the interview to him/herself.
Eliminates the element of fear from the employees in that their responses cannot be traced back
to them.
It gives the employee more time to think through each question and therefore give more quality
responses.

1.2.5 Sample distribution


As shown in Table 1.1, the employee sample was spread across the ten KFS conservancies in addition to
the KFC. The highest percentages were drawn from Mau (14%), Central Highlands (11%) and Coast
(11%). Conversely, the lowest sample was drawn from North Eastern (2%) and Ewaso North (3%).

Table 1.1: Sample distribution by conservancy

Conservancy Number Percent
Central Highlands 74 11
Coast 72 11
Eastern 88 13
Ewaso North 22 3
KFC 49 7
Mau 90 14
Nairobi 69 10
North Eastern 11 2
North Rift 47 7
Nyanza 67 10
Western 69 10

KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
7



1.2.6 Characteristics of the sample


Table 1.2 displays the sample characteristics in terms of gender, years in service and age. In terms of
gender, the sample depicts askew in favour of males, depicting 73% against 25%, female. Regarding
years in service, it is seen that the bulk of the sample (27%) has worked for over 10 years with KFS,
while 10% have worked for 1 year or less. In terms of age, the highest proportion (34%) was in the
middle age 31 to 44 years, with a combined proportion of 48% being 45 years and above.


Table 1.2: Sample characteristics

Gender
Male 479 73
Female 163 25
NR 18 3

Years in service
1 yr 63 10
2 to 3 yrs 34 5
4 to 5 yrs 71 11
5 to10 yrs 69 10
10+ yrs 175 27
NR 247 37

Age
18-24 9 1
25 to 30 92 14
31-44 223 34
45-50 158 24
Above 50 156 24
NR 22 3

KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
8


Section 2: The Forest Sector in Kenya


2.1 The Kenya Forest Service


The oversight institution responsible for management of the forest sector in Kenya is the KFS. The KFS
was established by an act of Parliament as a body corporate under the Forest Act, 2005, to provide for
the establishment, development and sustainable management, including conservation and rational
utilization of forest resources for the socio-economic development of the country. Under the existing
legislation, the broader mandate of KFS extends to all forests.

Mandate
To provide for the establishment, development and sustainable management, including conservation and
rational utilization of forest resources for environmental protection and socio-economic development of
the country

Core Functions
On this account, the specific functions of KFS include the following:
1. To sustainably manage natural forests for social, economic and environmental benefits
2. Increase productivity of industrial forest plantations and enhance efficiency in wood utilization
3. Promote farm forestry and commercial tree farming
4. Promote efficient utilization and marketing of forest products
5. To promote sustainable management of forests in the drylands
6. To protect forestry resources and KFS property
7. To develop and maintain essential infrastructure for effective forest management and protection

Vision
To be the leading organization of excellence in sustainable forest management and conservation


KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
9
Mission
To enhance conservation and sustainable management of forests and allied resources for environmental
stability and socio-economic development

Stakeholders
In undertaking it functions, KFS works with a broad range of stakeholders (customers). The key
customers include but not limited to:
1. Communities and land owners e.g. community forest associations, organized community
groups, farmers, pastoralists and commercial tree growers.
2. Private Sector e.g. licensees, concessionaires, saw miller, ecotourism based enterprises, Small
and Medium Enterprises and Suppliers
3. Non Government Organizations (local and international)
4. Development partners (governmental and non-governmental)
5. Government agencies: these include local authorities and parastatals
6. The General public
7. Service providers


2.2 Situation analysis of the forest sector


Forests are among the Kenyas important natural resources as they supply goods and services for socio
economic and cultural development. The gazetted forestland is estimated to be 1.7 million hectares. This
is just about 2.5 % per cent of the countrys land area. Recent estimates, based on remote sensing,
indicate that Kenya has a critical 1.7 per cent of closed canopy forest cover (UNEP, 2001).

The gazetted forests constitute 0.12 million hectares of plantation forest, 1.21 million hectares of
indigenous forest, and 0.5 million hectares of protective bush and grassland. A total of 36.7 million
hectares of other forest associations exist under other legal frame works that include National Parks,
Ranches, Trustlands and forests private ownership. As Water Catchment, forests in Kenya play a vital
role as home to the nations Water towers, i.e. the five main water catchments (Mt Kenya,
Cherangani, Aberdares, Mau and Mt Elgon) constituting the bulk of Kenyas high forests.



KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
10
2.2.1 Economic importance and role towards Vision 2030

Kenyas Vision 2030 notes that, globally, deforestation and forest degradation accounts for 20% of
green house gases (GHG) emissions and that forest conservation can provide 20% of the solution to
global warming. It therefore calls for the urgent need to conserve, protect and rejuvenate Kenyas
forests. The Vision 2030 recognizes the importance of forest industries to the national economy -
accounting for more than 2% of the GDP.

Forestry business in many African countries is mainly transacted in the informal sector. This is a sector
that operates at the interface of the monetized and traditional economies. The types of activities that
characterize the sector include subsistence collection of forest products, processing and trade in
firewood, charcoal, forest foods and handicrafts. It is assumed that in some countries, business
conducted in the informal forestry sector may contribute more to rural livelihoods than that in the formal
forestry sector. They provide employment opportunities in various industries, thereby contributing to
improved income and livelihoods of many Kenyans. These include: sawmills, pulp and paper industry,
woodfuel industry, basketry, charcoal production, marketing and transportation industry, wood curving
industry, and non-timber forest products industries.

The Forest Act 2005 and the KFS strategic plan (2006 to 2011) stipulate that Kenyas forests will be
broadly managed for the following purposes:

1) Biodiversity, soil and water conservation and provision of other environmental services;
2) Wood production (timber, pulp, woodfuel and poles) and employment current and potential;
3) Conservation of wildlife habitats; and,
4) Production of non-wood forest products and ecotourism development. More specifically, the
Act clearly states that plantation forests will be managed primarily for the production of wood
and other forest products and services for commercial purposes.

The ban on forest timber harvesting which has now been reviewed was for a long time a major
constraint to forest management and in particular, it affects the level of royalty collection, the quality of
timber products (including exposing plantations to risk of fires and disease/insect infestation),
insufficient or lack of raw materials supply, and increased cost of forest commodities.



KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
11
2.2.2 Challenges


One of the main challenges currently facing the sector is deforestation and degradation. Loss of forest
resources, general land degradation and desertification are serious environmental as well as socio-
economic problems globally and in Kenya.
2
Three key drivers have been identified as having immensely
contributed to this problem in Kenya. These include: Clearing for agriculture, unsustainable utilization
and poor governance and institutional failures. Thus, the past two decade has seen decline in the
coverage of the sub-total forest land by about 12,050 ha annually.


Table 2.1: Level of forest coverage between 1990 and 2010

Category of forest resource
(using FAO definitions)
Area (000 Ha)
Annual Change
(000 Ha)
1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 - 2010
1. Indigenous closed Canopy Forest 1,240 1,190 1,165 1,140 -5
2. Indigenous Mangroves 80 80 80 80 0
3. Open woodlands 2,150 2,100 2,075 2,050 -5
4. Public Plantation Forests 170 134 119 107 -3.15
5. Private Plantation forests 68 78 83 90 +1.1
Sub - total Forest land
(total of above categories)
3,708 3,582 2,357 3,467 -12.05
6. Bush-land 24,800 24,635 24,570 24,510 -14.5
7. Farms with Trees 9,420 10,020 10,320 10,385 +48.25
Total Area of Kenya 58,037 58,037 58,037 58,037 0







2
Mr Aeneas Chuma, Resident Representative, UNDP, Kenya
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
12


Section 3: Results and Discussion


3.1 Overall Performance

3.1.1 Employee satisfaction index

For the overall measurement of the ESI, a composite score based on 14 dimensions of service delivery
was computed. Table 3.1 reports the indices by aggregate and specific service dimensions. The overall
ESI was calculated to be 61.64.

Across the ten service delivery dimensions, the index scores are in the range between 52 and 77 points.
The dimension of Immediate supervisor ranked the highest (77.5), and conversely, the lowest ESI
figures apparent in respect to relationship with co-workers (52.53) and remuneration and benefits
(53.42)

Table 3.1: Employee Satisfaction Index
Satisfaction Index
Overall Index 61.64
Immediate supervisor 77.50
Performance Appraisal 73.50
Communication and delivery of Organizational Mandate 71.54
Teamwork 67.18
Communication and engagement 62.18
Leadership and management 57.81
Recognition 57.32
Staff Development and Training 56.99
Remuneration and Benefits 53.42
Relationship with co-workers 52.53




KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
13
3.1.2 Performance gaps

To measure performance gaps, participants were asked to rate various service delivery attributes, first
for expectations and then for satisfaction. This analysis focused on the difference between expectations
and how they perceived KFCs performance. Table 3.2 shows the performance gaps to that regard.
Recording an average gap of -1.31, performance expectation record an average score of 4.62, and
satisfaction levels recording an average score of 3.42 are observed. Looking at satisfaction gaps, the
results show that, relative to employee expectations, the performance of KFS is deemed to be most weak
in respect to the following three dimensions (top row):
- Relationship with co-workers (-2.07)
- Remuneration and benefits (-1.88)
- Recruitment and promotion (-1.75)

On the other hand, relative to employee expectations, the performance of KFS is deemed to be most
strong in respect to four dimensions (bottom row):
- Staff training and development (-1.64)
- Immediate Supervisor (-0.38)
- Communication and delivery of mandate (0.72)
- Performance appraisal (-0.81)

Finally, relative to their expectations, employee satisfaction levels are mid-range on four dimensions
(middle row):
- Teamwork (-1.20)
- Communication and engagement (-1.26)
- Leadership and management (-1.34)
- Recognition (-1.36)

Accordingly, in order to improve satisfaction levels, the first three areas that depict the widest gaps
would require the greatest attention, while the mid-range dimensions would require modest attention.




KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
14
Table 3.2: Satisfaction gaps across the service delivery dimensions

Performance

Expectation

Gaps
Average 3.42 4.62 -1.31
Relationship with co-workers 2.9 4.73 -2.07
Remuneration and benefits 2.8 4.71 -1.88
Recruitment and promotion 3.0 4.58 -1.75
Staff training and development 3.1 4.55 -1.64
Recognition 3.1 4.38 -1.36
Leadership and management 3.2 4.63 -1.34
Communication and engagement 3.5 4.56 -1.26
Teamwork 3.8 4.77 -1.20
Performance appraisal 3.7 4.62 -0.81
Communication and delivery of organizational mandate 4.3 4.71 -0.72
Immediate Supervisor 4.2 4.57 -0.38



In Table 3.3, the satisfaction gaps are presented by the conservancies. Focusing on the key three
dimensions, it is apparent that the gaps are more nuanced in specific conservancies. In respect to
relationship with co-workers, the gaps emerge quite strongly in all conservancies, except Western and
North Rift. With regard to remuneration and benefits, the concern is most strong in Nairobi, Mau and
KFC personnel. In respect to recruitment and promotions, concerns are most strong in Nairobi,
Eastern, North Rift and among KFC personnel.



KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
15
Table 3.3: Satisfaction gaps across the service delivery dimensions by conservancy

NRB CH Coast EST EN Mau WSN NE NRT NYZ KFC
Average -1.54 -1.03 -1.39 -1.62 -1.25 -1.26 -1.20 -1.23 -1.09 -1.11 -1.67
Relationship with co-workers -2.04 -2.19 -2.11 -2.33 -1.90 -1.92 -1.81 -2.89 -1.83 -2.24 -2.00
Remuneration and benefits -2.17 -1.81 -1.81 -1.88 -1.79 -1.95 -1.89 -1.57 -1.71 -1.79 -2.00
Recruitment & promotion -1.99 -1.28 -1.77 -2.14 -1.58 -1.78 -1.59 -1.26 -1.91 -1.48 -2.18
Staff training and development -2.00 -1.35 -1.61 -1.91 -1.75 -1.62 -1.41 -1.63 -1.31 -1.41 -2.27
Recognition -1.60 -0.93 -1.46 -1.86 -1.63 -1.14 -1.27 -0.63 -1.01 -1.26 -1.87
Leadership & management -1.44 -1.21 -1.38 -1.81 -0.59 -1.15 -1.39 -0.94 -1.07 -1.09 -1.80
Communication & engagement -1.73 -0.82 -1.50 -1.74 -1.45 -0.89 -1.07 -1.43 -1.06 -0.88 -1.82
Teamwork -1.19 -0.23 -1.66 -1.39 -1.10 -1.81 -0.99 -0.99 -0.43 -1.07 -2.05
Performance appraisal -1.17 -0.75 -0.61 -0.89 -0.63 -0.80 -0.95 -1.36 -0.63 -0.49 -1.15
Communication & delivery of
organizational mandate -0.73 -0.60 -1.21 -1.17 -1.00 -0.43 -0.46 -0.07 -0.84 -0.39 -0.64
Immediate Supervisor -0.87 -0.15 -0.13 -0.69 -0.34 -0.39 -0.35 -0.72 -0.16 -0.15 -0.57
NRB (Nairobi); CH (Central Highlands); EST (Eastern); EN (Ewaso North); WSN (Western); NE (North Eastern); NRT (North Rift); NYZ (Nyanza); KFC (Kenya
Forest College)



3.2 Employee perceptions of service delivery dimensions


3.2.1 Communication and delivery of organizational mandate


The survey commenced with the dimension of communication and delivery of Organizational
Mandate, which was addressed using three attributes depicted in Figure 3.1. Presenting results for the
positive ratings (strongly/ somewhat agree), results show modest satisfaction rating of 64%. It is
notable that satisfaction levels on all the three items are somewhat positive, evidenced by positive scores
ranging from 68% to 60%.




KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
16
Fig 3.1: Satisfaction with KFS on communication and delivery of organizational mandate




3.2.2 Leadership and management


Leadership and management is a broad dimension and was evaluated from an expansive perspective,
using twelve-attributes, displayed in Figure 3.2. On average, just below half (45%) showed satisfaction
on this dimension. The figures obtained for the twelve aspects, however, vary quite dramatically, with
positive scores ranging from 59% to 33%. It is observed that less than half of the participants had a
positive view on eight aspects.

Grading these in two categories, modestly low scores are observed in respect to the following:
- Address of gender equity issues
- Recognition and utilization of employees abilities and skills
- Accountability and transparency in managing the institution and its resources,
and Sensitivity to employees concerns

On the other hand, the lowest scores are apparent in respect to the following aspects:
- (Facilitation of) open, stress-free and comfortable work environment
- Pursuit and reward of meritocracy
- Staff participation in decision making, and
- Rewarding staff creativity and innovation
60
65
68
64
5
5
3
4
31
21
22
25
5
9
7
7
0% 100%
The management has made ef f ort to ensure
the staf f are aware and understand its strategic
direction
I believe KFS Vision and Mission are realistic
and relevant
KFS's Vision, Mission, Objectives and Core
values are well stated and communicated to
staf f
Average score
Agree Neither Disagree DK/NR
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
17
Fig 3.2: Satisfaction with KFS on leadership and management



3.2.3 Communication and engagement


The assessment of satisfaction with regard to communication and engagement was addressed using nine
attributes. Summarizing the results (see Figure 3.3), on average, a positive score of 47% is observed,
with the satisfaction ratings ranging from 54% to 42%.

From a broad perspective, it is apparent that across the nine attributes examined, lower satisfaction
(below 50%) is evident across the board, exception being on the aspect of upward communication,
which notwithstanding, still depicts modest ratings (54%).
33
34
34
38
40
43
45
48
55
56
59
59
45
7
5
5
6
6
5
8
5
5
5
5
5
6
49
54
48
51
47
42
42
36
30
31
30
24
40
10
7
13
5
7
10
6
10
10
8
7
11
9
0% 100%
The management encourages and rewards staf f
creativity and innovation
KFS leadership seeks staf f s' opinions in decision
making
KFS leadership encourages, pursues and rewards
meritocracy
The management has created an open, stress f ree&
comf ortable work environment
KFS leadership is sensitive to employees concerns
The leadership upholds accountability and
transparency in managing the KFS and its resources
The management recognizes and makes use of
employees abilities and skills
KFS leadership promotes gender equity through
af f irmative action
KFS leadership adheres to scientif ic principles and
prof essionalism
KFS leadeship encourages integrity and ethics to
guide the conduct business
KFS leadership encourages teamwork and
partnerships
KFS leadership encourages and promotes strong
partnerships with our stakeholders
Average score
Agree Neither Disagree DK/NR
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
18

Fig 3.3: Satisfaction with communication and engagement




3.2.4 Teamwork


The dimension of teamwork was measured using eight attributes displayed in Figure 3.4. On average,
modest satisfaction ratings are evident, recording 58% agreeability rating. However, satisfaction ratings
ranging from 67% to 43% are observed across these aspects.

Focusing on the areas of relative concern, it is noted that the proportion of participants who positively
rated the teamwork and team spirit in KFS as a whole, effort used to institute and train team spirit,
and willingness to assist others without instruction from higher authorities were comparatively lower,
depicting positive scores below 60%.


42
44
46
46
47
48
48
49
54
47
8
5
6
5
8
7
7
7
6
7
41
42
39
40
32
34
39
37
29
37
8
8
9
8
13
11
6
7
12
9
0% 100%
Feedback is always communicated promptly to the
KFS staf f
The management always communicates with
employees (whether there is a problem or not)
The KFS results/decisions are clearly communicated
to the staf f
The KFS management maintains ef f ective
communication with staf f
There is adequate and quick communication between
departments
I learn about what is going on in the KFS through
f ormal communication than grapevine
There is adequate and quick communication in the
organization
KFS believes in open and honest communication
among staf f
Upward communication is encouraged at KFS
Average score
Agree Neither Disagree DK/NR
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
19
Fig 3.4: Satisfaction with teamwork





3.2.5 Recruitment, discipline and promotion practices


The assessment of satisfaction with regard to recruitment, discipline and promotion was addressed using
nine attributes. As depicted in Figure 3.5, average positive score of 32% is observed, with relative
variation in the satisfaction ratings, ranging from 40% to 24%. Participants inability to provide a rating
on the attributes is nonetheless quite apparent, as evidenced by the relatively high percentage DK/NR
response (from 10% to 22%).

The results indicate relatively lower satisfaction levels across all nine attributes (all depicting less than
half). On account of these results, however, the most notable concerns here can be discerned in three
areas: transparency of recruitment and selection processes, transparency of promotions, and access
to KFS Human Resources Policies and Procedures Manual, these three aspects eliciting lower than
30% of the positive score.
43
50
56
61
61
62
67
67
58
5
4
6
5
6
6
3
4
5
42
37
30
27
25
25
24
23
29
10
8
9
7
8
7
7
7
8
0% 100%
There is teamwork and team spirit at KFS as a
whole
KFS Leadership has spent effort to train and
institute team spirit
I assist others without instructions to do so from
higher authority
Teamwork is encourage and recognized by the
leadership
Our team undertakes activities that promote and
sustain team spirit
We share views before taking collective actions to
get the jobs done
We always work and solve challenges as a team in
my department/unit
Our departmental /unit head always encourages
and inspires team spirit
Average score
Agree Neither Disagree DK/NR
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
20
Fig 3.5: Satisfaction with recruitment, discipline and promotion practices






3.2.6 Staff training and development


With regard to staff training and development, eleven attributes were used to evaluate employee views
on this dimension. Almost consistent with the scores observed in respect to recruitment, discipline and
promotion practices, the results show average positive score of 36%, again with relatively high
percentage DK/NR response, from 7% to 26% (see Figure 3.6). More specifically, the observed
positive scores across the eleven attributes ranged from 58% to 29%.

It is observant that with exception of two attributes (i.e. relevancy of trainings attended and the
adequacy of employees current training to improve skills), results for the rest of the attributes are
relatively less positive, depicting positive scores less than 40%.

24
25
29
31
33
34
36
37
40
32
5
5
5
6
5
5
7
6
6
6
54
55
54
53
46
49
42
44
32
48
16
16
13
10
16
12
16
13
22
15
0% 100%
Recruitment & selection processes at KFS are
transparent, fair and in line with HR Policies and
Procedures
Promotions at KFS are always transparent and
done on Merit
I have a copy of KFS HR Policies and Procedures
Manual (Code of Conduct)
KSF management has made effort to make the
staff understand the HR Policies and Procedures
Manual
Gender balance/equity is always upheld while
recruiting and promoting staff at KFS
I am fully aware of KFS Human Resources (HR)
Policies and Procedures Manual
The Management always follows KFS HR Policies
and Procedures while handling its staff matters
KSF is an equal opportunity employer
KFS management handles staff disciplinary issues
transparently and according to the procedures in the
HR Manual
Average score
Agree Neither Disagree DK/NR
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
21
Fig 3.6: Satisfaction with staff training and development




3.2.7 Supervision


Turning to supervision, views on this dimension were evaluated using ten attributes. It is noteworthy in
this assessment that, of the survey dimensions examined, this aspect elicited the highest positive ratings,
on average depicting 72%, with the scores on the specific attributes ranging from 76% to 68% (see
Figure 3.7).

Although depicting relatively high scores, and therefore not warranting much attention as areas of
concern, it is useful to note that the lowest positive ratings emerged in respect to the following two
areas; supervisor asking for employee input to help make decisions and supervisor treatment of the
team members equally, cordially, fairly and with respect.

29
30
31
33
33
33
34
34
34
50
58
36
5
5
6
6
6
4
3
6
7
4
7
6
40
42
48
45
38
45
49
43
44
38
22
41
26
23
15
16
23
18
15
17
15
7
13
17
0% 100%
KFS has well-established succession plan to all
staff
KFS has an excellent staff training development
plan for all its staff
KFS is good at identifying individual training needs
KFS Management provides equal opportunity
KFS has well-established talent management plan
All staff training and staff development activities
are done transparently according the HR Manual
KFS will usually promote the right staff from inside
before hiring people from outside
KFS has a clearly established career path for its
entire staff
KFS provides training opportunities to staff
transparently
I have enough training to improve my job skills
All training programmes I have attended are
relevant to my job
Average score
Agree Neither Disagree DK/NR
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
22
Fig 3.7: Satisfaction with supervision




3.2.8 Remuneration and benefits


Ten survey items were used to evaluate employee views about remuneration and benefits highlighted
in Figure 3.8. Results suggest that employees generally view the remuneration and benefits issues in less
positive terms, noted, on average, by a positive score of 32%. More specifically, positive scores of 44%
to 19% are observed.

The results for all the ten attributes are generally relatively less positive, depicting positive scores less
than 50%, with the most notable concern apparent in three areas: house allowance provided, the range
of allowances provided to staff and the grading system.



68
69
70
70
71
71
75
75
76
76
72
4
3
3
5
4
5
4
4
4
2
4
21
22
15
20
19
16
15
16
16
16
18
7
7
11
6
7
8
6
6
5
5
7
0% 100%
My supervisor treats all team members
equally, cordially, fairly and with respect
My supervisor asks me for input to help make
decisions
My supervisor understands how to undertake staff
performance appraisal
My supervisor commends me when I do my work
well
My supervisor leads by example
My supervisor sets clear priorities for what needs to
be achieved
My supervisor tells me when my work needs
improvement
My supervisor treats me fairly and with respect
My supervisor is always accessible whenever I
need him
If I have an issue relating to work, I am free to
consult my supervisor
Average score
Agree Neither Disagree DK/NR
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
23
Fig 3.8: Satisfaction with remuneration and benefits





3.2.9 Relationship with co-workers


The dimension of relationship with co-workers was measured using three attributes displayed in Figure
3.9. On average, depicting a positive score of 57%, the satisfaction ratings across the three attributes
ranged from 72% to 44%. Participants showed least satisfaction with inter-departmental social
activities. (Note that the statements: Staff face discrimination on the basis of training, gender, etc and
I like working alone rather than in teams are recoded in the reverse for this analysis).
19
21
26
28
29
31
36
39
43
44
32
5
4
5
4
5
5
7
8
6
5
5
60
58
56
54
40
50
40
41
32
36
47
16
16
14
13
26
15
18
13
19
15
16
0% 100%
I am satisfied with the house allowance provided
I am satisfied with the range of allowances availed
to staff
I am satisfied with the grading system
My salary and benefits are commensurate with my
duties and responsibilities
All compensation/benefits are fair and based on
performance
I am satisfied with the transport facilities offered
Our pay package is competitive as compared with
other organizations
I am satisfied with terms and conditions of Service
I am satisfied with the Insurance Scheme provided
to staff
I am satisfied with the medical scheme
Average score
Agree Neither Disagree DK/NR
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
24
Fig 3.9: Satisfaction with relationship with co-workers





3.2.10 Recognition


Views about recognition were evaluated using three attributes highlighted in Figure 3.10. On average,
a positive score of 44% was observed. Across the three attributes, the positive scores ranged 48% to
38%, with the most notable concern emerging in respect to the extent individual initiatives are
encouraged and recognized.


Fig 3.10: Satisfaction with recognition


44
56
72
57
8
6
4
6
39
30
15
28
8
8
9
8
0% 100%
Inter-departmental social activities are given
sufficient attention
*Staff face discrimination on the basis of
training, gender, etc
*I like working alone rather than in teams
Average score
Agree Neither Disagree DK/NR
* valiables recorded in reverse
38
47
48
44
8
5
7
7
44
39
36
40
10
9
9
9
0% 100%
Individual initiatives are encouraged and
recognized
KFS empowers me to make decisions on my
job
Good work is recognized by the management
and supervisors
Average score
Agree Neither Disagree DK/NR
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
25
3.2.11 Performance appraisal

The last dimension examined relates to performance appraisal, which was evaluated using four
attributes. On average, a positive score of 57% is observed, with the level of satisfaction on the three
aspects ranging from 61% to 54%. It is observant that on the four areas, the results are fairly less
positive in respect to: mutual agreement on performance objectives with the manager, level of focus
on staff development and perceived fairness.


Fig 3.11: Satisfaction with recognition






3.3 Factors employee driving satisfaction


3.3.1 Factors that underline employee satisfaction

Given the large number of attributes that were available for analysis relative to the sample size (82
variables against a sample of 660), the analytical process to assess satisfaction drivers included Pearson
Correlation, which was first used to identify the attributes that related most strongly to overall
satisfaction. Pearson Correlation isolated 28 variables that depicted coefficient values of 0.45 and above.

Following, Exploratory Factor Analysis using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to
identify service constituents at which satisfaction levels are highest. The purpose of PCA is to reduce
the data by identifying the patterns of correlation between different attributes. The analysis extracted
54
56
59
61
57
4
5
5
6
5
29
28
24
21
25
13
11
12
13
12
0% 100%
Perf ormance appraisal system f airly evaluates
staf f perf ormance
Perf ormance appraisals are regular and f ocused
on staf f development
My perf ormance objectives are mutually agreed
upon with my manager
My Manager is objective in appraising staf f
Average score
Agree Neither Disagree DK/NR
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
26
three factors (see Table 3.4). The measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) against all attributes was
confirmed at 0.960, with significance level (Bartlets Sphecirity test) found at p = 0.00, which reflects a
good correlation, indicating that the factor analysis is useful with the data.

The three factors extracted collectively covered 23 attributes, which cumulatively explained 68.59% of
the variance in the data. The estimates of the variance in each item were < 0.56. Accordingly, the pattern
of correlation shows that the three factors, in order of importance, can be interpreted as follows:

Factor 1: The leading factor, interpreted as Receptivity and communication, accounted for
28.73% of the variance. This factor constitutes a large set of eleven items that are essentially
related to the openness and affability of the management system.

Factor 2: The second factor, Staff development system accounted for 20.90% of the variance.
This factor comprised seven items that are primarily related to career, training and disciplinary
issues.

Factor 3: This can be interpreted as Alignment of corporate strategies, and accounted for
18.96% of the variance. As seen, this factor was defined by KFSs apparent strategic focus on
its core area of business.





KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
27
Table 3.4: Factors that underline employee satisfaction






Factor (% of
variance)
KFS management has created an open, stress free&
comfortable work environment
0.74









Receptivity and communication
(28.73%)

The leadership recognizes and makes use of its employees
abilities and skills
0.70

KFS leadership accountability and transparency while
managing the institution and its resources
0.67

KFS believes in open and honest communication among
staff
0.76

Feedback is always communicated promptly to the KFS
staff
0.75

There is adequate and quick communication between
departments
0.58

The KFS management maintains effective communication
with staff
0.77

The KFS results/decisions are clearly communicated to the
staff
0.67

Good work is recognized by the management and
supervisors at KFS
0.67

Individual initiatives are encouraged and recognized at
KFS
0.66

There is teamwork and team spirit at KFS as a whole 0.75
KFS Leadership has spent effort to train and institute team spirit

0.56
Staff development system
(20.90%)






KFS management always handles staff disciplinary issues transparently and
according to the laid down procedures in the HR Manual
0.69

KFS has a clearly established career path for its entire staff 0.71
KFS has an excellent staff training development plan for all its staff 0.79
KFS has well-established talent management plan 0.70
I am satisfied with terms and conditions of service at KFS

0.66
Our pay package is competitive as compared with other
organizations

0.58
KFS's Vision, Mission, Objectives and Core values are well stated and communicated to
staff by the management
0.82



Alignment of corporate
strategies (18.96%)



The management has made a lot of effort to ensure the staff are aware and understand its
strategic direction
0.77

I believe KFS Vision and Mission are realistic and relevant 0.83
The Leadership of KFS always adhere to scientific principles and professionalism in the
management of KSF and the forestry industry
0.62

The leadership of KFS always encourages teamwork and partnerships 0.64


KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
28
Fig. 3.12 considers the relative contribution of factors to overall satisfaction. It is seen that across the
three factors, Receptivity and communication accounts for the highest share of employee satisfaction
42%. The other two factors staff development system and alignment of corporate strategies
account for 30% and 28% of employee satisfaction respectively.


Fig. 3.12: Contribution of factors to satisfaction




3.4 Promise of loyalty


3.4.1 Intent to continue working with KFS


One measure used to assess employee promise of loyalty was by asking participants to rate their
agreeability, on a 5-point scale, with the statement: I would not leave KFS even if I got a better paying
job. For this analysis, in order to more precisely evaluate employee promise of loyalty, participants are
grouped into five categories based on their responses, as follows:

Scale 5 (strongly agree): Not seeking
Scale 4 (somewhat agree): Reluctant
Scale 3 (neither/DK): Undecided
Scale 2 (somewhat disagree): Passively seeking
Scale 1 (strongly disagree): Actively seeking


Looking first at the overall figures, the results suggest modest predisposition among the employees to
look for another job. As shown in Figure 3.13, it is apparent that, based on combined proportions for
those actively seeking and passively seeking, about one-third of the employees (41%) are inclined to
Receptivity &
communication,
42%
Staff
development
system , 30%
Alignment of
corporate
strategies, 28%
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
29
look for another job. Conversely, based on those who responded strongly disagree, and therefore
suggesting they are not seeking another job, it is possible to infer that overall employee promise of
loyalty (i.e. with certainty) stands at about one-third (34%). On the other hand, looking at the
reluctant proportion (i.e. based on the somewhat disagree response), 12% are likely to positively
consider a good opportunity. Just (4%) remain unsure.


Fig. 3.13: Overall inclination to look for another job





3.4.2 Willingness to continue working at same facility/station


Next, assessment of promise of loyalty (at the Facility/Station level) was measured on the basis of
willingness to continue working at same facility/station. Participants were asked to rate their
agreeability, on a 5-point scale, with the statement: I would like to continue working at this station.
Here, participants responses have been grouped into three categories to reflect different levels of
willingness to continue working in the station, as depicted below:


Scale 4 & 5 (strongly/somewhat agree): Willing to continue working at same station
Scale 3 (neither): Undecided
Scale 1 & 2 (strongly/somewhat disagree): Not willing to continue working at same station


Portrayed thus, the results show that slightly over half (55%) of the employees are willing to continue
working at their current stations, while just below one-third (29%) show unwillingness to that regard.
The results are displayed in Figure 3.14 below.

Not
seeking, 34
Reluctant, 12
Undecided, 4
Passively
seeking, 12
Actively
seeking, 29
DK/NR, 9
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
30
Fig. 3.14: Overall willingness to continue working at the same station




3.4.3 Willingness to recommend KFS as a good place to work in


For a final measure of employee promise of loyalty, participants were asked to rate their willingness to
recommend KFS as a good place to work in. In similar vein, they were asked to rate their agreeability,
on a 5-point scale, with the statement: I would recommend the KFS as a good place to work in.

Again, for the purpose of analysis, participants responses are grouped into three categories to reflect
willingness to recommend KFS. This illustrated below:


Scale 4 & 5 (strongly/somewhat agree): Would recommend
Scale 3 (neither): Undecided
Scale 1 & 2 (strongly/somewhat disagree): Would not recommend


As observed in Figure 3.15, the results suggest that, overall, about two-thirds (62%) of the employees
would be willing to recommend KFS as a good place to work in. Just below one-quarter (23%) would
be unwilling to do so, while 6% were undecided or unsure. Roughly one-tenth (9%) could not provide a
comment.



Not willing to
continue working
at same
station, 29%
Undecided, 9%
Willing to
continue working
at same
station, 55%
DK/NR, 7%
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
31
Fig. 3.15: Overall willingness to recommend KFS as a good place to work in


3.5 Outlook on change in KFS over time


3.5.1 Employee perceptions of improvements over time


To examine perceptions of improvement over time, participants were asked to rate their agreeability, on
a 5-point scale, with the statement: Overall, I feel things have changed for the better at KFS. To
evaluate employee perceptions to that regard, responses are grouped into three categories as illustrated:

Scale 4 & 5 (strongly/somewhat agree): Changed for better
Scale 3 (neither): Not sure
Scale 1 & 2 (strongly/somewhat disagree): Changed for worse


As displayed in Figure 3.16, it is observed that about half of participants (57%) had a positive view, and
conversely just above one-quarter (26%) being unequivocally negative.


Fig. 3.16: Perceptions of change over time


Would not
recommend,
23%
Undecided,
6%
Would
recommend,
62%
DK/NR, 9%
Changed for
worse, 26
Not sure, 6
Changed for
better, 57
DK/NR, 11
KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
32
3.5.2 Suggestions for improvement


Providing further opportunity for the participants to offer suggestions for improvement on the job and
work environment dimensions as a whole, the comments obtained covered a broad range, with the
highest number pointing to work overload concern, reflected in the need to employ more staff,
particularly rangers (26%), followed by resource and financing concerns (11%). Other notable mention
was opportunities for staff training and development (6%).


Table 3.5: Suggestions for improvement
%
Need to employ more staff, particularly rangers 26
Address distribution of budgeting and resources 11
Increase opportunities for staff training and development 6
Allow room for staff input into management issues 4
Improve working conditions, particularly with regard working space 4
Address communication 3
Improve infrastructure, particularly with regard to housing 2


KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
33



Conclusion


In looking back at selected findings in this Report, it is first useful to consider the ESI and how this has
changed over time. Depicting ESI of 61.34 points, these results suggest relatively high level of approval
by the employees on the services provided by KFS.

Looking at the dimension depicting the widest gaps in satisfaction levels, the results call attention to
three areas, namely: relationship with co-workers, remuneration and benefits and recruitment and
promotion practices, these are dimensions that are of immediate interest to employees, and addressing
pockets of disquiet is urgent in order to improve employee satisfaction levels.

On the other hand, on the basis of PCA, the data does indicate a number of strengths, these being the
platforms on which employee satisfaction is grounded. As noted, employee satisfaction congregates
around the factors of Receptivity and communication, Staff development system and Alignment of
corporate strategies. However, even though these constitute the satisfaction drivers, what is of relative
concern is that they appear to drive satisfaction with relatively lower scores in terms of proportions that
showed satisfaction with the various aspects under these dimensions. Although not a priority currently,
it is observed that, given their level of importance to the employees, these are areas of long-term interest
to the employees, and addressing pockets of disquiet is useful to prevent potential lapse in employee
satisfaction.

Finally, an important indicator in this assessment is that of perceptions of change. It is commendable
that a modest proportion view KFS in positive terms. This is noticeable by 57% (overall) who thought
that things have changed for the better, and a 62% proportion who showed willingness to recommend
KFS as a good place to work in. This is notwithstanding the fact that about one-third of the employees
(34%) showed inclination to look for another job.



KFS Employee Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers
34
Recommendations

On the basis of the survey findings, the following are suggested as ways to address areas where there are
gaps in service delivery. It is important to emphasize that the suggestions highlighted are based on those
elements where employees expectations are highest.

5. Co-worker relations: Enhance co-worker relations through intra and inter-departmental social
activities among the staff
6. Training and development: Address staff training and development issues, with specific focus
on the following two areas: first, is the need to provide information on staff training
opportunities to build confidence on the nomination procedures; second, staff should provide
input into areas where they are in need of training,
7. Promotions: The Human Resource function needs to provide clear specifications of the staff
grading system and streamline staff promotion system
8. Communication: Although communication does not expressly emerge as an area of concern,
there is need to map out specific corporate measures that address negative perceptions,
particularly concerning recruitment and promotion, corruption and so on