WFC Spring Reception 2009

1. WFC Spring Reception 2009 WFC co-Chairs: Caroline Hayes Pat Frazier

2. Women’s Faculty Cabinet (WFC) • Mission • To improve and enrich academic and professional environment of women faculty • To ensure a strong commitment by the University to the success of its women faculty • WFC is completing its third year, • Approach: • Investigate status of women on campus, • Propose policy and programs to improve status, • Recognize, celebrate and connect women faculty across campus.

3. WFC Activities in 2008-09 • Assessing status and climateat U of M: • Analyzed Pulse Survey by gender and rank, • Minnesota Futures grant proposal: climate assessment, • Initiated salary equity study. • Policy Recommendations (Larson): • Search and P&T committee composition: Women (and members of underrepresented groups) assigned to search and P&T committees should be of similar rank and tenure status as the men (or high-power group). It is not enough to insure that such committees have broad demographic representation. The rank, particularly of those from underrepresented groups, must also be considered if all voices are to be heard.

4. WFC Activities in 2008-09 (continued) • Recognizing, celebrating & connecting faculty women • Selection of speakers for Ada Comstock Lectures: • Sara Evans: The Glass Ceiling is Broken, • Jane Davidson: Solar After Dark, • Website: http://www.academic.umn.edu/wfc/index.html • Newsletter: http://www.academic.umn.edu/wfc/documents/wfc_newsletter.pdf • Fall and Spring Receptions.

5. The PULSE of Women at the U of M WFC Spring Reception 2009 Colleen Flaherty Manchester

6. U of M PULSE Survey • Biennial survey of faculty and staff • Goal is to measure faculty and staff satisfaction with the U of M as an employer and use the data to continuously improve the employee experience. • Years: 2004, 2006, 2008. Next survey in 2010. • Sponsored by Human Resources and Institutional Research under the direction of Carol Carrier with collaboration of Prof. Theresa Glomb • Composition of sample: Female (56.9%), Male (39.3%), Choose not to answer (1.1%), Transgender (0.1%)

7. Today’s Featured Results • Breakdown responses by sex and by rank • Job Satisfaction • Pay Satisfaction • Job Stress • Work & family demands • Work-family conflict • Coping mechanisms & life adjustments • Results by majority/minority racioethnic groups (not shown) • Limit analysis to male vs. female

8. Job Satisfaction • Job satisfaction is associated with many important outcomes such as turnover, commitment, and job performance (Judge et al., 2001) • Finding: High degree of job satisfaction across all ranks & both sexes • No significant differences between males and females. • Similar to previous studies • Faculty (e.g., Olsen, Maple, & Stage, 1995) • Other professional employees, such as lawyers (e.g., Mobley et al., 1994; Resnick& Crosby, 2006) and accountants (e.g., Chatman, 1991)

9. Pay Satisfaction • Four categories of pay satisfaction: pay level, benefits, raise, and pay structure • Finding: Across all ranks, females significantly less satisfied with pay structure. • Pay structure includes consistency, across departments, & within departments. * * * * *

10. Job Stress • Measure of overall level of job stress • Finding: Females, particularly in senior ranks, express higher job stress • Note: Difference not found among staff employees * * *

11. Job Stress: Time Allocation • Weekly work hours not statistically different by sex across rank • U of M Faculty at all ranks work between 54 and 57 hours per week. • In other professions there is evidence that men work longer hours than women * Significant at p<.01

12. Job Stress – Higher Work Demands • Subsequent question about sources of stress • Females report significantly higher work demands • e.g., Having to complete a lot of work, working very hard, working at a rapid pace, under time pressure, etc. * * *

13. Non-work Demands • Females across all ranks report substantially more time spent on childcare • Females also more likely to have elder care responsibilities • Mirrors societal trend (Gornick& Meyers, 2003) • Difference by sex is smaller among staff * * * * * * * *

14. Family Life • Higher time demands not due to greater number of children, but greater responsibility for childcare • Existing research: Female faculty are less likely to have at least one child and 2/3 believe childbearing negatively affected their career (Jones, 1990; Perna, 2001) • Finding: U of M female faculty have significantly fewer children * * *

15. Intersection between Work & Family • Work-family conflict • The extent to which employee’s work demands interfere with family responsibilities • Work-family conflict is associated with stress, life satisfaction, and family satisfaction (Bedeian et al., 1988) • Females in senior ranks report significantly higher conflict • For staff, males report significantly higherconflict(p<.05) * * * *

16. Family Demands – Coping Mechanisms • Female faculty respond by making adjustments to personal life • Reduced leisure • Working outside of normal work hours * * * * * *

17. Summary of Findings • Female faculty report significantly higher job stress than male faculty • Difference by sex concentrated among higher ranks • Differences by sex not as pronounced among staff • Female faculty report • Greater work demands • Greater family responsibility • Higher work-family conflict despite attempts at coping

18. Audience Brainstorming Session: • What are potential solutions? At home? At work? • How can these solutions be communicated? • What U of M policies or practices would help facilitate reduced stress?