1 / 10

Regional Group Survey

Regional Group Survey. Round Table July 2003 Andrews University. Response Rate = 47% (66/140) Gender Female: 48% Male: 52%. Degree MA: 3% PhD: 97% Status Active: 87% Inactive: 2% Alumni: 11%. Demographics. The Good News.

prince
Download Presentation

Regional Group 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. Regional Group Survey Round Table July 2003 Andrews University

  2. Response Rate = 47% (66/140) Gender Female: 48% Male: 52% Degree MA: 3% PhD: 97% Status Active: 87% Inactive: 2% Alumni: 11% Demographics

  3. The Good News • 86% believe RGs are important to success in leadership program • 89% describe members as cohesive, trusting, open and supportive • 77% report minutes are posted regularly • 89% know how to arrange faculty visits (CONCERN: Why are faculty not invited to visit RG?) • 99% report that RGs are within guidelines for RG membership (6-7 members)

  4. 27% did NOT understand the importance of RG PRIOR to entering Leadership program. 55% can NOT describe the four stages of the group process 24% of RG do NOT meet the required 6-7 times a year Only 58% found joining a RG “very easy” Only 16% say RGs are functioning very well. The Concerns

  5. Use RT and Orientation to EDUCATE participants ACCOUNTABILITY: What are the consequences for those who do not meet the expectations? More FACULTY SUPPORT – this includes clearer and more structured guidelines Require GROUP CHARTERS: New participants can receive info on existing RGs How can RGs be more effective?

  6. Honorable Mentions • Require MONTHLY RG meetings • RECOGNIZE RG leadership with academic/IDP credit • Eliminate term ‘Regional’ – may no longer reflective our global nature

  7. Hot Topics: Open vs. Closed? • Yes: 51% • No: 49%

  8. Open vs. Closed: Highlights • Veterans must adopt newcomers. This is the essence of leadership • Faculty need to define “functional” and then let groups decide how best to achieve this standard • Size should be the primary reason for NOT accepting new members

  9. Continued • RGs with members in the final stages of completing program should NOT be required to accept new members • A RG should have a good reason for not accepting a new member • RGs need help resolving group CONFLICT • Regional Group Coordinator is a good idea

  10. COMMUNICATE importance of RGs during application and orientation process Seek ways to FACILTATE the integration of new participants into RGs EDUCATE ALL participants on the group process Investigate GROUP Charters (perhaps require of all new groups) Regional Group Coordinator? Direction for the Future

More Related