2006 Employee Satisfaction Survey Prepared by: Norwood Office Park 7400 New LaGrange Rd Suite 200...
Preview:
Citation preview
- Slide 1
- 2006 Employee Satisfaction Survey Prepared by: www.deyta.com
Norwood Office Park 7400 New LaGrange Rd Suite 200 Louisville, KY
40222 502 896 8438 ph 502 896 0718 fax University of Louisville
OverallFacultyStaff
- Slide 2
- 2 The University of Louisville periodically measures
satisfaction among Faculty and Staff, with the following goals:
Objectives Assess current opinions about U of L working conditions.
Identify significant differences in satisfaction between current
results and scores from previous survey administrations. Isolate
strong performance areas and growth opportunities. Evaluate
variation within demographic subtypes. Examine satisfaction among
departments relative to internal norms. Review written feedback for
patterns and trends. Offer general recommendations for future
improvements.
- Slide 3
- 3 Three primary sections: Demographics Scale-based Questions
Written Comments Participants express their opinions by marking the
level of agreement held for each survey question. The top two
survey responses (4+5) combine for the percent satisfied with an
issue. Multiple satisfaction themes: University of Louisville Work
Environment Communications Pay and Benefits Leadership Universitys
Mission Job Opportunity Job Satisfaction Overall Impression
Instrument Design TOTAL QUESTIONS 71 Faculty 59 Staff TOTAL
QUESTIONS 71 Faculty 59 Staff
- Slide 4
- 4 ELIGIBLE RESPONSES Combined University: 42.3% Faculty Rate:
33.0%* ELIGIBLE RESPONSES Staff Rate: 47.9% ELIGIBLE RESPONSES
Survey Participation * Faculty participation has fallen
considerably from 2003 (44%) and 2000 (41%)
- Slide 5
- 5 Faculty Survey Academic Unit Sent Ret. Percent Libraries
School of Public Health School of Law College of Ed. & Human
Dev. College of Arts & Sciences Speed Scientific School School
of Medicine School of Nursing School of Dentistry College of Bus.
& Pub. Admin. School of Music Kent School of Social Work 42 31
40 183 498 106 751 50 139 120 73 70 Survey Participation (by
Department*) 27 15 68 176 37 237 15 40 33 20 11 64% 48% 38% 37% 35%
32% 30% 29% 28% 27% 16% * For departments returning at least five
surveys. Staff Survey Unit Sent Ret. Percent School of Nursing
School of Law College of Ed. & Human Dev. Student Affairs
School of Public Health Provost Kent School of Social Work
University Advancement College of Bus. & Pub. Admin College of
Arts & Sciences Information Technology Libraries School of
Dentistry Speed Scientific School School of Medicine President
Research Administration OPB a.k.a. VPF Intercollegiate Athletics
School of Music Graduate School VPFA a.k.a. VPA (Owsley) 17 27 69
143 33 128 31 99 70 167 184 77 174 97 1,255 13 65 74 165 15 14 603
13 19 43 87 20 76 18 56 39 91 100 41 85 47 594 6 28 31 69 6 5 210
76% 70% 62% 61% 59% 58% 57% 56% 54% 53% 49% 48% 47% 46% 43% 42% 40%
36% 35%
- Slide 6
- 6 Participant Representation By Administrative Code (Faculty,
Professional Non-Faculty, Skilled Crafts, etc.) By Departmental
Code (Cardiology, Pathology, HCS Grounds Maintenance, etc. grouped
together using the first two digits of each departments ID number)
Percentage of records in survey file (responses) Percentage of
records in source file (download) 96.0% CORRELATION 99.6%
CORRELATION Analysis of respondent data suggests returned surveys
are highly representative of the sampled population.Analysis of
respondent data suggests returned surveys are highly representative
of the sampled population. Note that other demographic factors
(gender, work status, etc.) are based entirely on self-report.Note
that other demographic factors (gender, work status, etc.) are
based entirely on self-report.
- Slide 7
- 7 Demographics (All) GenderEthnicity Length of Service
Long-Term Commitment
- Slide 8
- 8 Demographics (Faculty) GenderHighest Education Rank at
University Status at University
- Slide 9
- 9 Demographics (Staff) Gender Highest Education Length of
Service Job Type
- Slide 10
- 10 Results Overview: University Totals Note that not all
questions were asked of both Faculty and Staff. On reports showing
combined Faculty and Staff results, only those questions shared
between both surveys will be considered.
- Slide 11
- 11 I like my job at U of L: This is a significant improvement
over 2003 (3.97) Job Satisfaction (Key Indicator) Strongly Agree
Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Disagree 29.8% 52.9% 11.1% 4.0%
2.2% University Overall: Average Score = 4.04 University Overall:
Individually, Faculty and Staff results for this question do not
show a significant improvement. General satisfaction continues to
show significant increases.General satisfaction continues to show
significant increases. Relatively few respondents express
dissatisfaction with their jobs at this university.Relatively few
respondents express dissatisfaction with their jobs at this
university. Slightly more than 71% of respondents would recommend U
of L to others for employment.Slightly more than 71% of respondents
would recommend U of L to others for employment. Faculty Rating
2006 Score 2003 Score Top 2 (4+5): 78% Top 2 (4+5): 77% Staff
Rating 2006 Score 2003 Score Top 2 (4+5): 85% Top 2 (4+5): 83% 2000
Score Top 2 (4+5): 73% Top 2 (4+5): 81%
- Slide 12
- 12 Overall Satisfaction (Other Indicators) Overall Results
Faculty Results Staff Results Scores for Faculty, Staff, and U of L
combined have improved significantly ( ).Scores for Faculty, Staff,
and U of L combined have improved significantly ( ). Faculty
confidence in U of Ls education quality shows the most room for
growth among the general factors shown here.Faculty confidence in U
of Ls education quality shows the most room for growth among the
general factors shown here. Would recommend university for
employment Would recommend university for education Overall,
welcomed and encouraged at university Top 2 (4+5): 75% Top 2 (4+5):
62% Top 2 (4+5): 71% Top 2 (4+5): 76% Top 2 (4+5): 56% Top 2 (4+5):
70% Top 2 (4+5): 75% Top 2 (4+5): 68% Top 2 (4+5): 73%
- Slide 13
- 13 Satisfaction Changes (Overall) The majority of changes
between 2003 and 2006 represent significant improvements.The
majority of changes between 2003 and 2006 represent significant
improvements. The strongest increases are seen for factors
involving U of Ls image, working conditions, and general quality as
an institute of higher education.The strongest increases are seen
for factors involving U of Ls image, working conditions, and
general quality as an institute of higher education. The feeling
employees are allowed to serve on committees has decreased
significantly.The feeling employees are allowed to serve on
committees has decreased significantly. 34 significant differences
found 33 are higher in 2006, 1 is higher in 2003. University has a
good image Quality and service are important to university Working
conditions have improved (last five years) Attitude of employees
towards university is positive Would recommend university for
employment Would recommend university for education University
places high priority on student success University supports the
diverse needs of emps. Salary increases are determined fairly
Dept./School allows emps. to serve on committees Factors showing
strongest statistically significant improvements in average score.
Significantly higher in 2006 Significantly lower in 2006
- Slide 14
- 14 General Scoring Trends Combined U of L Results Faculty
Survey Only Staff Survey Only Highest Average: 4.15 Lowest Average:
2.84 Highest Average: 4.09 Lowest Average: 2.78 Highest Average:
4.10 Lowest Average: 2.74 46 Questions 71 Questions 59 Questions
Most survey scores for both Faculty and Staff are in a moderate
improvement opportunity range (between 3.60 and 4.00).Most survey
scores for both Faculty and Staff are in a moderate improvement
opportunity range (between 3.60 and 4.00). Few ratings exceed 4.00
out of 5.00; scores below 3.00 are more common for Faculty.Few
ratings exceed 4.00 out of 5.00; scores below 3.00 are more common
for Faculty. Proportionately more questions score 3.60 or lower for
Faculty than for Staff (58% of Faculty scores versus 46% of Staff
scores).Proportionately more questions score 3.60 or lower for
Faculty than for Staff (58% of Faculty scores versus 46% of Staff
scores).
- Slide 15
- 15 Strengths (Overall) General Job Satisfaction The majority of
both Faculty and Staff respondents indicate that they are satisfied
with their jobs at this university.The majority of both Faculty and
Staff respondents indicate that they are satisfied with their jobs
at this university. Overall job satisfaction has improved
significantly since 2003 for U of L results considered as a
whole.Overall job satisfaction has improved significantly since
2003 for U of L results considered as a whole. Many respondents
note that U of L is a great place to work, even when returning
otherwise critical comments.Many respondents note that U of L is a
great place to work, even when returning otherwise critical
comments. Significant Satisfaction Improvements Many survey factors
show a statistically significant increase in average score since
opinions were last collected in 2003.Many survey factors show a
statistically significant increase in average score since opinions
were last collected in 2003. These improvements can be found down
to the department level; significant decreases in ratings are
uncommon.These improvements can be found down to the department
level; significant decreases in ratings are uncommon. Support of
Ethical Behavior Most respondents agree that they are Encouraged to
behave ethically.Most respondents agree that they are Encouraged to
behave ethically. This factor almost always appears within the top
10 survey results by department, seldom scoring below 4.00 out of
5.00.This factor almost always appears within the top 10 survey
results by department, seldom scoring below 4.00 out of 5.00.
- Slide 16
- 16 Highest Ratings (Overall) Top 2 (4+5) = 86% Top 2 (4+5) =
83% Top 2 (4+5) = 84% Top 2 (4+5) = 78% Top 2 (4+5) = 80% Top 2
(4+5) = 79% Top 2 (4+5) = 75% Top 2 (4+5) = 80% Encouraged to
behave ethically in my job I like my job at this university
Co-workers in dept. / school respect emp. diversity I am challenged
by my job Dept. / school allows emps. to serve on committees
Receive info needed about university from website Workspace /
equipment is safe / free from hazards This university serves the
community Co-workers in dept. / school work together as a team I
understand universitys benefits package Indicates statistically
significant change in average score from 2003 to 2006. High-ranking
scores reveal relatively favorable support for ethical behavior,
diversity, and cooperation among survey respondents.High-ranking
scores reveal relatively favorable support for ethical behavior,
diversity, and cooperation among survey respondents. Many of the
highest ranking results are significantly higher in 2006 compared
with 2003; one factor has fallen significantly (committee
participation).Many of the highest ranking results are
significantly higher in 2006 compared with 2003; one factor has
fallen significantly (committee participation).
- Slide 17
- 17 Opportunities (Overall) Perceived Discrimination (Staff)
African American Staff respondents return significantly lower
scores than Whites for questions involving salary fairness and
support of diversity.African American Staff respondents return
significantly lower scores than Whites for questions involving
salary fairness and support of diversity. At the same time, several
written comments complain about reverse discrimination, observing
that minority groups are afforded unfair advantages.At the same
time, several written comments complain about reverse
discrimination, observing that minority groups are afforded unfair
advantages. Survey Ratings Despite significant improvements, many
factors continue to receive moderate to unfavorable average
scores.Despite significant improvements, many factors continue to
receive moderate to unfavorable average scores. Most results range
between 3.00 and 4.00; select issues score below 3.00.Most results
range between 3.00 and 4.00; select issues score below 3.00.
Critical ratings below 3.00 are particularly evident at the
departmental level.Critical ratings below 3.00 are particularly
evident at the departmental level. Satisfaction with Pay As in
prior years, satisfaction with pay remains a concern among both
responding Faculty and Staff.As in prior years, satisfaction with
pay remains a concern among both responding Faculty and Staff.
Complaints about pay include fairness relative to duties,
dissatisfaction with raises, and imbalances in pay based on gender
or other factors.Complaints about pay include fairness relative to
duties, dissatisfaction with raises, and imbalances in pay based on
gender or other factors. Department-Level Scores Specific
departments within both Faculty and Staff demonstrate notably
strong opportunities, returning significantly lower scores relative
to overall totals.Specific departments within both Faculty and
Staff demonstrate notably strong opportunities, returning
significantly lower scores relative to overall totals.
- Slide 18
- 18 Lowest Ratings (Overall) Each of the lowest rated survey
results observed in 2006 receives an average score that is
significantly higher this year than in 2003.Each of the lowest
rated survey results observed in 2006 receives an average score
that is significantly higher this year than in 2003. Improvement
opportunities are still evident in many areas; however, these
results suggest encouraging outcomes for efforts applied since the
last survey period.Improvement opportunities are still evident in
many areas; however, these results suggest encouraging outcomes for
efforts applied since the last survey period. Top 2 (4+5) = 37% Top
2 (4+5) = 38% Top 2 (4+5) = 33% Top 2 (4+5) = 44% Top 2 (4+5) = 35%
Top 2 (4+5) = 45% Top 2 (4+5) = 41% Top 2 (4+5) = 56% Top 2 (4+5) =
49% Paid fairly, relative to my responsibilities Paid fairly,
relative to experience / qualifications Salary increases are
determined fairly There is NOT too much stress / pressure in my job
Central admin. gives priority to employee satisfaction Chances for
advancement at university are good Working conditions have improved
(last five years) Central administration provides strong leadership
Dept. / school is staffed to cover regular workloads Benefits are
better than I would receive elsewhere Indicates statistically
significant change in average score from 2003 to 2006.
- Slide 19
- 19 16 significant differences found 7 are higher for males, 9
are higher for females. Significantly higher for Females
Significantly lower for Females Benefits are better than I would
receive elsewhere Receive info needed about university from website
Would recommend university to others for employment Would recommend
university to others for education University has a good image Good
comm. between academic / non-academic emps. University does not
discriminate against employees Receive info about university from
chair / supervisor Dept. / school allows emps. to serve on
committees University practices affirmative action in hiring /
promotion Factors showing strongest statistically significant
differences in average score. Females return significantly higher
ratings for benefits, informative quality of the universitys
website, and other general indicators of overall
satisfaction.Females return significantly higher ratings for
benefits, informative quality of the universitys website, and other
general indicators of overall satisfaction. Females are less
satisfied with issues of discrimination at U of L, the level of
information provided by department heads, and committee
participation.Females are less satisfied with issues of
discrimination at U of L, the level of information provided by
department heads, and committee participation. Satisfaction
Differences (Gender)
- Slide 20
- 20 Satisfaction Differences (Race) The number of higher and
lower significant differences is more or less equal between Whites
and all other racial groups combined.The number of higher and lower
significant differences is more or less equal between Whites and
all other racial groups combined. All Others are more satisfied
with improvement programs and U of Ls public image.All Others are
more satisfied with improvement programs and U of Ls public image.
Many significantly lower scores for the All Others category involve
support of diversity and freedom from discrimination within this
university.Many significantly lower scores for the All Others
category involve support of diversity and freedom from
discrimination within this university. Significantly higher for All
Others Significantly lower for All Others Challenge for Excellence
will lead to improvements Labs, class / work area, buildings well
maintained Working conditions have improved (last five years) I
believe universitys image is improving Central admin. gives
priority to employee satisfaction Univ. practices affirmative
action in hiring / promotions Co-workers in dept. / school respect
diversity of emps. University does not discriminate against
employees I understand universitys benefits package University
supports the diverse needs of employees Factors showing strongest
statistically significant differences in average score. 20
significant differences found 11 are higher for All Others, 9 are
higher for Whites.
- Slide 21
- 21 In a comparison of African American survey responses to
results from Whites (the two largest demographic groups among
respondents), African American results tend to be significantly
below Whites on select factors. Significant differences between
Whites and African Americans are most noticeable within Staff
Survey responses. For Faculty and Staff, questions involving
affirmative action, fairness in pay and advancement opportunities,
and support of diversity are rated more critically by African
American respondents. Nevertheless, survey comments include
observations from university employees that they perceive reverse
discrimination on campus. Satisfaction Differences (Race) FACULTY
RESULTS 1 significantly higher score 6 significantly lower scores
STAFF RESULTS 2 significantly higher scores 16 significantly lower
scores OVERALL RESULTS 4 significantly higher scores 14
significantly lower scores
- Slide 22
- 22 Other Differences (Faculty vs. Staff) Faculty respondents
return many critical ratings compared to their Staff
counterparts.Faculty respondents return many critical ratings
compared to their Staff counterparts. Faculty are more satisfied
with their sense of involvement in University affairs.Faculty are
more satisfied with their sense of involvement in University
affairs. The strongest negative differences for Faculty involve
resources, workloads, and general perceptions of the University as
a workplace and institute of higher learning.The strongest negative
differences for Faculty involve resources, workloads, and general
perceptions of the University as a workplace and institute of
higher learning. Significantly higher for Faculty Significantly
lower for Faculty Have proper equipment, supplies, etc. to do job
Benefits are better than I would receive elsewhere Dept. / school
is staffed to cover regular workloads Would recommend university to
others for education University has a good image Factors showing
strongest statistically significant differences in average score.
Dept. / school allows emps. to serve on committees Chances for
advancement at university are good I am challenged by my job
Receive info about university from chair / supervisor Salary
increases are determined fairly 34 significant differences found 11
are higher for Faculty, 23 are higher for Staff.
- Slide 23
- 23 Results Overview: Faculty Totals
- Slide 24
- 24 Factors showing a relationship with overall satisfaction (I
like my job at U of L), based on Multivariate Regression Analysis
ranked by Beta. Key Satisfaction Drivers (Faculty) Facultys general
job satisfaction is most strongly influenced by the level of
challenge provided by their day-to-day duties.Facultys general job
satisfaction is most strongly influenced by the level of challenge
provided by their day-to-day duties. Low stress, manageable
workloads, and the perception that conditions improve over time
also have a notable impact.Low stress, manageable workloads, and
the perception that conditions improve over time also have a
notable impact. Top 2 (4+5) = 84% Top 2 (4+5) = 40% Top 2 (4+5) =
59% Top 2 (4+5) = 37% Top 2 (4+5) = 84% Top 2 (4+5) = 82% Top 2
(4+5) = 75% I am challenged by my job Beta = 0.346 There is NOT too
much stress or pressure in my job Beta = 0.180 Current workload
allows me to do a high quality job Beta = 0.130 Working conditions
have improved (last five years) Beta = 0.103 Encouraged to behave
ethically in my job Beta = 0.098 Chair is respectful of me as a
person Beta = 0.090 Can exercise my academic freedom at U of L Beta
= 0.087 r-Square: 63.7%
- Slide 25
- 25 Satisfaction Changes (Faculty) Significantly higher in 2006
University places high priority on student success University has a
good image There is support of faculty at this university Would
recommend this university to others for work Overall, I am welcomed
and encouraged at this university Factors showing strongest
statistically significant differences in average score. Quality and
service are important to this university University places a high
priority on faculty success / welfare Central admin. gives priority
to employee satisfaction University supports diverse needs of
individual emps. Overall attitude of emps. toward university is
positive There are no statistically significant decreases for
Faculty scores from 2003 to 2006.There are no statistically
significant decreases for Faculty scores from 2003 to 2006. The
strongest increases suggest improvements in Facultys perception of
leadership as supporting both employee and student satisfaction.The
strongest increases suggest improvements in Facultys perception of
leadership as supporting both employee and student satisfaction.
Many of these changes show continued opportunity; current results
are encouraging.Many of these changes show continued opportunity;
current results are encouraging. 23 significant differences found
All significant changes are higher in 2006.
- Slide 26
- 26 Responding Faculty are most satisfied with their level of
participation in department- level affairs and with the respect
afforded by leadership and peers.Responding Faculty are most
satisfied with their level of participation in department- level
affairs and with the respect afforded by leadership and peers. Note
that only 17 out of 71 Faculty survey questions exceed 4.00 out of
5.00; on most issues, only 75% or fewer respondents Agree or
Strongly Agree.Note that only 17 out of 71 Faculty survey questions
exceed 4.00 out of 5.00; on most issues, only 75% or fewer
respondents Agree or Strongly Agree. Highest Ratings (Faculty) Top
2 (4+5) = 90% Top 2 (4+5) = 84% Top 2 (4+5) = 82% Top 2 (4+5) = 84%
Top 2 (4+5) = 81% Top 2 (4+5) = 78% Top 2 (4+5) = 75% Top 2 (4+5) =
79% Top 2 (4+5) = 77% Dept. / school allows emps. to serve on
committees I am challenged by my job Encouraged to behave ethically
in my job Chair is respectful of me as a person Co-workers in dept.
/ school respect emp. diversity Free to communicate thoughts /
ideas with Chair I like my job at this university Department Chair
evaluates my work fairly This university serves the community
University does not discriminate against employees Indicates
statistically significant change in average score from 2003 to
2006.
- Slide 27
- 27 Lowest Ratings (Faculty) Relatively few Faculty respondents
agree that they have benefited from mentoring opportunities; this
finding is similar to the result observed in 2003.Relatively few
Faculty respondents agree that they have benefited from mentoring
opportunities; this finding is similar to the result observed in
2003. Faculty remain critical of compensation, though some increase
in score can be seen.Faculty remain critical of compensation,
though some increase in score can be seen. More work is needed to
improve Faculty confidence in leadership support.More work is
needed to improve Faculty confidence in leadership support. Top 2
(4+5) = 36% Top 2 (4+5) = 39% Top 2 (4+5) = 40% Top 2 (4+5) = 29%
Top 2 (4+5) = 40% Top 2 (4+5) = 34% Top 2 (4+5) = 43% Top 2 (4+5) =
38% Top 2 (4+5) = 34% Top 2 (4+5) = 37% I have benefited from a
mentoring opportunity Dept. / school is staffed to cover regular
workloads Paid fairly, relative to my responsibilities Benefits are
better than I would receive elsewhere There is NOT too much stress
or pressure in job Dean seeks input before making decisions Paid
fairly, relative to my experience / qualifications Salary increases
are determined fairly Central admin. gives priority to employee
satisfaction Working conditions have improved (last five years)
Indicates statistically significant change in average score from
2003 to 2006.
- Slide 28
- 28 Significantly higher for Faculty Significantly lower for
Faculty I understand universitys benefits package Chances for
advancement at this university are good Benefits are better than I
would receive elsewhere Salary increases are determined fairly
Dept. / School allows emps. to serve on committees There is NOT too
much stress or pressure in my job Dept. / School is staffed to
cover regular workloads Current workload allows a high quality job
University places high priority on staff success / welfare I have
benefited from a mentoring opportunity Factors showing strongest
statistically significant differences in average score. 13
significant differences found 6 are higher for Full-Time, 7 are
higher for Part-Time. Satisfaction Differences (Status) 13
significant differences found 6 are higher for Full-Time, 7 are
higher for Part-Time. Full-Time Faculty return significantly higher
ratings for pay and benefits issues.Full-Time Faculty return
significantly higher ratings for pay and benefits issues.
Satisfaction with committee participation is also significantly
higher for Full-Time.Satisfaction with committee participation is
also significantly higher for Full-Time. The gap between Faculty
types is notably large for select issues (e.g. workloads and
stress) that receive a less favorable rating from Full-Time Faculty
respondents.The gap between Faculty types is notably large for
select issues (e.g. workloads and stress) that receive a less
favorable rating from Full-Time Faculty respondents.
- Slide 29
- 29 Satisfaction Differences (Gender) Female Faculty express
significantly higher satisfaction with deans and other
leaders.Female Faculty express significantly higher satisfaction
with deans and other leaders. The strongest significant differences
between these groups involve many factors that otherwise rate less
than favorably for either male or female Faculty.The strongest
significant differences between these groups involve many factors
that otherwise rate less than favorably for either male or female
Faculty. Female Faculty respondents appear more critical than males
regarding workload.Female Faculty respondents appear more critical
than males regarding workload. 14 significant differences found 11
are higher for Females, 3 are higher for Males. Significantly
higher for Females Significantly lower for Females My Dean provides
opportunities / support for prof. dev. Receive info needed about
university from website Central admin. gives priority to academic
quality / outcomes I have benefited from a mentoring opportunity
Dean provides strong leadership for school / college Ideas for
improvement are encouraged Chair provides opportunities / support
for prof. dev. Current workload allows a high quality job
University does not discriminate against employees Arrangement of
labs / class area enables me to do job Factors showing strongest
statistically significant differences in average score.
- Slide 30
- 30 Satisfaction Differences (Race) Non-White Faculty return
significantly less favorable assessments regarding U of Ls support
of a discrimination-free working environment.Non-White Faculty
return significantly less favorable assessments regarding U of Ls
support of a discrimination-free working environment. Despite this,
few survey questions demonstrate statistically significant
differences.Despite this, few survey questions demonstrate
statistically significant differences. Non-White Faculty are
notably more satisfied with facility conditions and in the
potential success of the Challenge for Excellence program.Non-White
Faculty are notably more satisfied with facility conditions and in
the potential success of the Challenge for Excellence program.
Significantly higher for All Others Significantly lower for All
Others Labs, class / work area, and building well maintained
Challenge for Excellence will lead to improvements Working
conditions have improved (last five years) Dept. / school is
staffed to cover regular workloads Univ. practices affirmative
action in hiring / promotion University does not discriminate
against employees Co-workers in dept. / school respect emp.
diversity Factors showing strongest statistically significant
differences in average score. 13 significant differences found 9
are higher for All Others, 4 are higher for Whites. I have
benefited from a mentoring opportunity Arrangement of labs, class /
work area lets me do job Can exercise my academic freedom at this
university
- Slide 31
- 31 Satisfaction Trend (Length of Service) I am challenged by my
job There is NOT too much stress or pressure in my job Current
workload allows me to do a high quality job Working conditions have
improved (last five years) On most issues, satisfaction tends to
decrease as length of service increases. The trends for top Key
Satisfaction Drivers are shown here: The strength of this trend
varies, but can be seen for almost every question examined.The
strength of this trend varies, but can be seen for almost every
question examined. Faculty with between 11 15 years of service tend
to return the lowest ratings.Faculty with between 11 15 years of
service tend to return the lowest ratings.
- Slide 32
- 32 Faculty Comments 24 3 212 Faculty return numerous comments
covering a variety of topics. Administrative Issues: The university
is faulted for its loss of academic / student-center focus.The
university is faulted for its loss of academic / student-center
focus. Many respondents feel U of L places too much emphasis on the
athletics program and on research initiatives that will yield
financial gain or notoriety.Many respondents feel U of L places too
much emphasis on the athletics program and on research initiatives
that will yield financial gain or notoriety. Some faculty feel
administrators are unsupportive and fail to act on ideas or
feedback.Some faculty feel administrators are unsupportive and fail
to act on ideas or feedback. In general, respondents would like
improved accessibility, assertiveness, and cooperation with
administrative leadership.In general, respondents would like
improved accessibility, assertiveness, and cooperation with
administrative leadership. Faculty also stress the need for this
university to improve its public image.Faculty also stress the need
for this university to improve its public image. Pay and Benefits:
Relatively few comments (positive or negative) are returned
regarding compensation.Relatively few comments (positive or
negative) are returned regarding compensation. Some part-time /
term faculty do not feel pay or benefits are fair.Some part-time /
term faculty do not feel pay or benefits are fair. Other
respondents claim salary levels fail to provide an incentive.Other
respondents claim salary levels fail to provide an incentive.
Faculty offer a number of suggested improvements, including
domestic partner benefits.Faculty offer a number of suggested
improvements, including domestic partner benefits.
- Slide 33
- 33 Faculty Comments Working Conditions: Resource availability
and maintenance is criticized in faculty comments.Resource
availability and maintenance is criticized in faculty comments.
Many respondents are particularly unhappy with the physical
conditions of buildings and equipment on campus; comments include
requests for renovations and upgrades.Many respondents are
particularly unhappy with the physical conditions of buildings and
equipment on campus; comments include requests for renovations and
upgrades. Faculty describe their departments as understaffed and
themselves as overworked.Faculty describe their departments as
understaffed and themselves as overworked. Department Leadership:
Faculty return some positive feedback regarding specific Deans and
Chairs, often by name.Faculty return some positive feedback
regarding specific Deans and Chairs, often by name. Some negative
comments have positive aspects (e.g. [Leader] does a good job,
but).Some negative comments have positive aspects (e.g. [Leader]
does a good job, but). Criticisms include a perception of some
Deans as unsupportive and prone to favoritism.Criticisms include a
perception of some Deans as unsupportive and prone to favoritism. A
notable number of comments offer unfavorable feedback regarding
specific leaders.A notable number of comments offer unfavorable
feedback regarding specific leaders. Faculty: Survey participants
express the need for U of L to hire more faculty and to encourage
promotion from within before looking outside the university.Survey
participants express the need for U of L to hire more faculty and
to encourage promotion from within before looking outside the
university. Part-time and Term employees feel undervalued.Part-time
and Term employees feel undervalued. General (Positive): Comments
also include general statements expressing overall satisfaction
with U of L.Comments also include general statements expressing
overall satisfaction with U of L.