1 / 35

2011-2012 COACHE Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey

2011-2012 COACHE Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey. Deans’ Council Meeting November 8, 2012 Betsy Brown and Nancy Whelchel. Why?. To systematically collect information from our faculty to help NC State assess (and improve!) the quality of work life

holland
Download Presentation

2011-2012 COACHE Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2011-2012 COACHEFaculty Job Satisfaction Survey Deans’ Council Meeting November 8, 2012 Betsy Brown and Nancy Whelchel

  2. Why? To systematically collect information from our faculty to help NC State assess (and improve!) the quality of work life • Nature of work in research, teaching, and service • Resources to support faculty work • Tenure and promotion policies and practices • Leadership and governance • Department collegiality, quality, and engagement • Benefits, compensation, and work/life • Interdisciplinary work and collaboration • Mentoring • Appreciation and recognition

  3. Who? • Developed by Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (Harvard Graduate School of Education) • Over 75 participating colleges/universities • NC State COACHE peers • Clemson University • Kansas State University • Purdue University • SUNY-Albany • University of Tennessee • Population: • Pre-tenure and tenured faculty • Non-tenure track faculty (part of pilot study; no COACHE peer comparisons) • Full-time • Hired prior to July 1, 2011 • Not in terminal year after being denied tenure • What about staff? Planning for NCSU Staff Well-Being Survey, Spring 2014

  4. When, How and What? • October 2011 – January 2012 • NC State also participated in 2005-2006 and 2008-2009 surveys (pre-tenure faculty only) • Online survey • Results are/will be available for • Faculty overall (pre-tenure, tenured, non-tenure track) • Pre-tenure & tenured faculty • Overall & by gender, race/ethnicity, tenure status, rank, college • Compared to COACHE peers • Compared to results from previous COACHE surveys (pre-tenure only) • Non-tenure track faculty • Overall & by gender, race/ethnicity, college • Compared to pre-tenure & tenured faculty • Note: Current reports exclude Librarians (will be provided separately)

  5. Response Rates:Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty ff

  6. Response Rates:Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty cont. ff

  7. Response Rates:Non-Tenure Track Faculty ff

  8. Presentation of Results • Focus on • Global satisfaction • NC State pre-tenure & tenured faculty compared to COACHE peers • NC State pre-tenure & tenured faculty • Overall • Sub-group comparisons • Gender • Race/ethnicity • Tenure status • Rank • NC State NTT faculty • Overall • Compared to pre-tenure & tenured faculty • Gender comparisons • Note: No race/ethnicity comparisons due to no notable differences in responses • Note: Not reporting on comparisons to results from previous COACHE surveys (limited trend data due to changes in population and questions)

  9. Presentation of Results cont. • Methods • COACHE items typically ask for ‘agreement’ or ‘satisfaction’ with a particular statement or area of work • COACHE uses a 5-point response scale • Higher numbers represent more positive or favorable opinions • Reporting on average ratings • “Notable difference” between groups exist when the difference in averages rating is +/- 0.25. • Within reports for a sub-group, “higher” = 4.0 and above, “lower” = 2.75 or below

  10. Global Satisfaction:NC State Faculty Overall Overall, faculty are satisfied working at NC State • 74% are “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with their department as a place to work • 67% would choose to work at NC State again if starting over • 65% are “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with NC State as a place to work • 51% would “strongly recommend” their department as a place to work to someone of their same rank • 60% of pre-tenure & 70% of NTTs plan to stay at NC State for “ten years or more” • Most common reasons contributing to thinking about leaving? • To retire (23%) • To improve salary/benefits (22%)

  11. Global Satisfaction:NC State Faculty Overall Out of a list of 30 possible aspects of work… • Most commonly cited “best aspects” about working at NC State? • Geographic location (40% NTT, 32% pre-tenure, 42% tenured) • Quality of colleagues (28%, 34%, 32% respectively) • Academic freedom (18%, 14%, 19%) • Support of colleagues (16%, 15%,13%) • My sense of fit here (13%, 21%, 15%) • Most commonly cited “worst aspects” about working at NC State? • Compensation (49% NTT, 40% pre-tenure, and 40% tenured) • Lack of support for research/creative work (8%, 12%,18% respectively) • Quality of graduate students (1%, 14%, 10%) • Quality of facilities (9%, 10%, 12%)

  12. NC State / COACHE Peer Comparisons(Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty Combined) • NC State faculty have ratingssimilar to our COACHE peers for almost all items • Bragging rights… • NC State has notablymore favorable ratings than peers for • Classrooms (3.71 NC State vs 3.23 Peers) • Library resources (4.17vs 3.76) • Department culture encourages promotion (3.97 vs 3.68) • Mentoring of associate faculty (2.69 vs 2.42) • Offices (3.95 vs 3.69)

  13. NC State / COACHE Peer Comparisons (Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty) • Areas of relative weakness • NC State has notablyless favorable ratings than peers for • Health benefits for family (2.25 NC State vs 3.46 Peers) • Health benefits for employee (2.78 vs 3.58) • Tuition waivers, remission or exchange (2.16 vs 2.70) • Retirement benefits (3.06 vs 3.44) • Clerical/administrative support (2.98 vs 3.31)

  14. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty:Most Favorably Rated Aspects of Work(Average = 4.0 or higher) • Nature of Work • Discretion over courses taught (4.40) • Influence on focus of research (4.34) • Level of courses taught (4.10) • Resources • Library resources (4.17) • Mentoring • Importance of mentoring w/in dept (4.18) • Being a mentor is fulfilling (4.10) • Tenure/Promotion • Tenure: Reasonableness of teaching expectations (4.15) • Tenure: Reasonableness of scholarship expectations (4.01) • Promotion: Clarity of process (4.05) • Promotion: Clarity of body of evidence (4.00) • Department Life • Meeting times compatible w/ personal needs (4.13) • Intellectual vitality of pre-tenure faculty (4.09)

  15. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty:Least Favorably Rated Aspects of Work(Average = 2.75 or lower) • Compensation/Benefits • Tuition wavers/remission/exchange (2.16) • Housing benefits (2.20) • Health benefits for family (2.25) • Childcare (2.33) • Eldercare (2.59) • Governance/Leadership • Priorities are acted on consistently (2.50) • Dean’s support in adapting to change (2.56) • Priorities are stated consistently (2.68) • Interdisciplinary Work • Budgets encourage interdisciplinary work (2.52) • Facilities are conducive to interdisciplinary work (2.59) • Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in merit (2.61) • Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in promotion (2.66) • Mentoring • Support for faculty to be good mentors (2.37) • Mentoring of associate faculty (2.69) • Nature of Work • Support for research (2.72)

  16. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty:Comparisons by Gender • Women gave notablymore favorable ratings than men in just a few areas • Personal and family policies • Housing benefits • Tuition waivers, remission, exchange • Mentoring • Effectiveness of mentoring from outside the department / outside the university • Importance of mentoring from outside the department / outside the university

  17. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty:Comparisons by Gender Women gave notably less favorable ratings than men on most items, especially for*: • Promotion and Tenure • Department culture encourages promotion (3.56 vs 4.11) • Clarity of promotion process (3.70 vs 4.17) • Clarity of time frame for promotion (3.31 vs 3.78) • Clarity of promotion criteria (3.64 vs 4.04) • Tenure decisions are performance based (3.44 vs 3.89) • Clarity of expectations as an advisor (3.07 vs 3.47) • Nature of work • Ability to balance teaching/research/service (3.11 vs 3.53) • Equity of committee assignments (2.96 vs3.37) • Mentoring • Support for faculty to be good mentors (2.06 vs 2.47) • Mentoring of associate faculty (2.32 vs 2.82) • Other • Right balance between professional/personal (3.02 vs 3.50) • College is valued by Provost (3.01 vs 3.49) • Department is valued by Provost (2.77 vs 3.21) • Colleagues committed to diversity/inclusion (3.68 vs 4.08) * Items with at least a 0.40 difference (rather than 0.25) in average ratings given by women and men

  18. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty:Comparisons by Race/Ethnicity • Faculty of color gave notablymore favorable ratings than white faculty for • Nature of work • Support for travel to present/conduct research (3.23 vs2.97) • Support for faculty in leadership roles (3.22 vs 2.81) • Ability to balance teaching/research/service (3.66 vs 3.36) • Interdisciplinary work • Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in tenure (3.11 vs 2.80) • Tenure policies, clarity, reasonableness • Clarity of body of evidence for deciding tenure (4.00 vs 3.70) • Clarity of expectations: advisor (3.56 vs 3.23) • Retention • Decision to remain here is based on promotion (3.64 vs 3.24)

  19. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty:Comparisons by Race/Ethnicity Faculty of color gave notably less favorable ratings than white faculty for: • Promotion: Clarity of • Promotion process (3.81 vs 4.09) • Promotion criteria (3.68 vs 3.99) • Promotion standards (3.41 vs 3.68) • Time frame for promotion (3.39 vs 3.71) • Whether I will be promoted (3.08 vs 3.34) • Overall satisfaction • Visible leadership for support of diversity/inclusion (3.44 vs 4.05) • I would again choose this institution (3.51 vs 3.76) • Department collegiality, engagement, and quality • Colleagues are committed to diversity/inclusion (3.58 vs 4.03) • Department is successful at faculty retention (3.21 vs 3.49) • Personal and family policies • Stop-the-clock policies (3.42 vs 3.71) • Salary (2.48 vs 2.83) • Collaboration • Opportunities for collaboration within the department (3.42 vs 3.84)

  20. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty:Comparisons by Tenure Status Pre-tenure faculty gave notablymore favorableratings than tenured faculty for: • Nature of work • Support for travel to present/conduct research (3.26 vs 2.96) • Support for faculty in leadership roles (3.13 vs 2.83) • Facilities and work resources • Clerical/administrative support (3.21 vs 2.93) • Personal and family policies • Tuition waivers/remission/exchange (2.43 vs 2.10) • Health and retirement benefits • Retirement benefits (3.35 vs 3.00) • Mentoring • Effectiveness of mentoring from outside the institution (3.92 vs 3.64) • Importance of mentoring • Within department (4.41 vs 4.13) • Outside department (3.53 vs 3.26) • Outside the institution (3.93 vs 3.49) • Leadership and Governance • Dean: support in adapting to change (2.78 vs 2.52) • Head: fairness in evaluating work (4.17 vs 3.86)

  21. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty:Comparisons by Tenure Status • Pre-tenure faculty gave notablyless favorable ratings than tenured faculty on only one item • Right balance between professional/personal (3.02 vs 3.43)

  22. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty:Comparisons by Rank • Associate professors gave notablymore favorable ratings than full professors on only a few items • Eldercare (2.87 vs 2.51) • Importance of mentoring outside department (3.46 vs 3.17) • Importance of mentoring outside the institution (3.67 vs 3.40)

  23. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty:Comparisons by Rank Associate professors gave notably less favorable ratings than full professors on most items, especially for*: • Promotion • Reasonableness of expectations for promotion (3.46 vs 4.14) • Department culture encourages promotion (3.45 vs 4.26) • Clarity of • Time frame for promotion (3.06 vs 4.00) • Promotion process (3.56 vs 4.33) • Body of evidence for promotion (3.56 vs 4.24) • Promotion criteria (3.54 vs 4.17) • Promotion standards (3.28 vs 3.84) • Nature of work • Ability to balance teaching/research/service (3.15 vs 3.59) • Mentoring/Collaboration • Mentoring of associate faculty (2.28 vs 2.94) • Support for faculty to be good mentors (2.10 vs 2.51) • Opportunities for collaboration within department (3.65 vs 3.91) * Items with at least a 0.40 difference (rather than 0.25) in average ratings given by associate and full professors

  24. Non-Tenure Track Faculty:Most Favorably Rated Aspects of Work(Average = 4.0 or higher) • Nature of Work • Discretion over courses content (4.30) • Time spent on teaching (4.24) • Resources • Library resources (4.30) • Mentoring • Importance of mentoring w/in dept (4.33) • Being a mentor is fulfilling (4.06)

  25. Non-Tenure Track Faculty:Least Favorably Rated Aspects of Work(Average = 2.75 or lower) • Promotion • Clarity of NTT promotion process (2.58) • Clarity of NTT promotion standards (2.59) • Clarity of NTT promotion criteria (2.64) • Clarity of body of evidence for promotion for NTTs (2.69) • Clarity of whether will be promoted (2.69) • Department life • Dept addresses sub-standard performance (2.42) • Discussions of grad student learning (2.56) • Nature of Work • Availability of course release for research (2.73) • Mentoring • Mentoring of non-tenure track faculty in department (2.56) • Support for faculty to be good mentors (2.64) • Interdisciplinary Work • Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in merit (2.68) • Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in promotion (2.71) • Compensation/Benefits • Childcare (2.45) • Housing benefits (2.63) • Spousal/partner hiring programs (2.63) • Salary (2.65) • Health benefits for family (2.75)

  26. Non-Tenure Track Faculty:Compared to Tenure Track Faculty(Pre-tenure/Tenured Combined) • NTT faculty gave notablymore favorable ratings than pre-tenure & tenured faculty for many (most) items, especially those related to…. • Nature of work: Support for research, teaching, etc. • Personal and family policies (including balance, flexible workload/duties,) • Health and retirement benefits • Leadership and governance

  27. Non-Tenure Track Faculty:Compared to Tenure Track Faculty(Pre-Tenure & Tenured Combined) NTTs gave notably less favorable ratingsthan pre-tenure & tenured faculty for: • Department life • Discussions of graduate student learning (2.56 vs 3.59) • Discussions of current research methods (2.93 vs 3.40) • Amount of professional interaction with tenured faculty (3.36 vs 3.76) • How well you fit (3.28 vs 3.67) • Teaching effectiveness of tenured faculty (3.37 vs 3.76) • Amount of professional interaction with pre-tenure faculty (3.43 vs 3.82) • Department addresses sub-standard performance (2.42 vs 2.79) • Amount of person interaction have w/ pre-tenure faculty (3.34 vs 3.64) • Teaching effectiveness of pre-tenure faculty (3.67 vs 3.96) • Appreciation and recognition • Recognition for scholarship (3.16 vs 3.41) • Nature of work • Influence over focus of research (3.99 vs 4.34) • Collaboration • Opportunities for collaboration outside the institution (3.39 vs 3.86) • Mentoring • Effectiveness of mentoring from outside the institution (3.44 vs 3.70)

  28. Important Areas for Discussion and Action • Benefits • Personal/family policies • Support • Balance • Interdisciplinarity • Mentoring • Tenure and promotion • Department life • Diversity • Leadership • Lower general satisfaction: women, associate professors and NTT faculty compared to men, full professors, T/TT faculty

  29. Important Areas for Discussion and Action • Benefits/Personal and Family Policies: • Health benefits for family and employee [overall, v peers, NTT] • Childcare [overall, NTT women] • Tuition wavers/remission/exchange [overall, FOC, v peers] • Housing benefits [overall, NTT] • Eldercare [overall, assoc] • Retirement [v peers, FOC] • Stop-the-clock policies [FOC] • Salary [FOC, NTT] • Spousal/partner hiring [NTT]

  30. Important Areas for Discussion and Action • Support • Clerical/administrative support [v peers, FOC] • Support for research [overall] • Support for faculty to be good mentors [women, assoc] • Balance • Ability to balance teaching/research/service [women, assoc] • Equity of committee assignments [women] • Right balance between professional/personal [women, pre-tenure faculty]

  31. Important Areas for Discussion and Action • Interdisciplinary Work • Budgets encourage interdisciplinary work [overall] • Facilities are conducive to interdisciplinary work [overall] • Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in merit [overall, assoc profs, NTT] • Interdisciplinary work rewarded in tenure [women] • Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in promotion [overall, assoc, NTT • Mentoring • Support for faculty to be good mentors [overall, women, assoc, NTT women] • Mentoring of associate faculty [overall, assoc profs] • Mentoring of NTT faculty [NTT] • Effectiveness of mentoring from outside the institution [women, NTT]

  32. Important Areas for Discussion and Action • Promotion and Tenure • Department culture encourages promotion [women, assoc] • Clarity of • promotion criteria [women, assoc, NTT, FOC] • promotion process [women, assoc, NTT, FOC] • promotion standards [assoc, NTT, FOC] • time frame for promotion [women, assoc, FOC] • body of evidence for promotion [assoc, NTT] • Reasonableness of expectations for promotion [assoc profs] • Tenure decisions are performance based [women] • Clarity about whether I will be promoted [NTT, FOC]

  33. Important Areas for Discussion and Action • Department life • Amount of professional interaction with tenured faculty [NTT] • How well you fit [NTT] • Amount of professional interaction with pre-tenure faculty [NTT] • Amount of person interaction have w/ pre-tenure faculty [NTT] • Teaching effectiveness of pre-tenure faculty [NTT] • Department addresses sub-standard performance [NTT] • Opportunities for collaboration within department [assoc, NTT, FOC] • Diversity • Colleagues committed to diversity [Women/FOC] • Visible leadership for support or diversity [FOC]

  34. Important Areas for Discussion and Action • Leadership (department, college, institution) • Clear and consistent priorities [overall] • Support for adapting to change [overall, FOC] • Department and college valued by provost [women]

  35. Next Steps • Presentation to the Vice Provosts and Deans’ Council this week; discussion of college reports later • Presentations to Faculty Senate and Faculty Well Being Advisory Committee • Post reports on UPA website • Presentations to other groups on campus as appropriate • Discussions of promotion with associate profs, tenured women, NTT faculty • Continued focus on benefits, work/life issues, support, balance, diversity • Development of capacity in interdisciplinarity, mentoring • Clear priorities and leadership for change • Improve department climate • Participate in COACHE every 3 years (next in 2014-2015 VOTE OBAMA TOMORROW

More Related