2009 employee satisfaction survey.pdf

8/10/2019 2009 Employee Satisfaction Survey.pdf

1/117

Employee

Satisfaction

Survey

Spring

2009Irvine Valley College


2/117

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY,SPRING 2009 IRVINE VALLEYCOLLEGE

1TABLE OFCONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figures........................................................................................................................................................... 3

Tables............................................................................................................................................................ 5

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 6

Methodology............................................................................................................................................. 7

ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................................................... 8

EmployeeSatisfactionandCampusEnvironment................................................................................ 8

Instruction........................................................................................................................................... 10

Leadership........................................................................................................................................... 10

CampusFacilities................................................................................................................................. 10

TechnologyInfrastructure.................................................................................................................. 11

HumanResources............................................................................................................................... 11

LevelsofCommunication.................................................................................................................... 12

CollegeDecision-MakingProcesses.................................................................................................... 12

Sense ofCommunity........................................................................................................................... 13

EmployeeSatisfactionandCampusEnvironment...................................................................................... 15

CampusEnvironment.............................................................................................................................. 20

Instruction................................................................................................................................................... 28

CampusFacilities......................................................................................................................................... 30

Classrooms,Labs,andInstructionalEquipment..................................................................................... 30

CampusFacilities..................................................................................................................................... 31

CampusParking....................................................................................................................................... 32

Campus Safety......................................................................................................................................... 33

TechnologyInfrastructure.......................................................................................................................... 34

Leadership................................................................................................................................................... 35

HumanResources....................................................................................................................................... 39

Diversity.................................................................................................................................................. 40

LevelsofCommunication............................................................................................................................ 41

CollegeDecision-MakingProcesses............................................................................................................ 44

Open-EndedResponses.............................................................................................................................. 60

Appendix A:Demographics......................................................................................................................... 70


3/117


2TABLE OFCONTENTS

Appendix B:SurveyQuestionnaire............................................................................................................. 73

Appendix C:VerbatimResponsestoOpen-EndedQuestions.................................................................... 87


4/117


3FIGURES

FIGURES

Figure1:Overall Satisfaction (n= 208)....................................................................................................... 15

Figure2:Satisfaction with SpecificAspectsofEmployment...................................................................... 18

Figure 3:SatisfactionwithSpecificAspectsofEmploymentbyBargaining Unit........................................ 19

Figure 4:Rating ofCampusEnvironmentforEmployees(n= 208)............................................................ 20

Figure 5:ImprovementofCampusEnvironmentforEmployees(n= 208)................................................ 21

Figure 6:Rating ofCampusEnvironmentforStudents(n= 208)............................................................... 23

Figure 7:ImprovementofCampusEnvironmentforStudents(n= 208)................................................... 24

Figure 8:ImprovementofProgramsandServices(n= 208)...................................................................... 24

Figure9:JobClimate(n= 181)................................................................................................................... 25

Figure10:Model ofEmployeeSatisfaction................................................................................................ 27

Figure 11:FacultyPerceptionofInstructional Procedures(n= 80)........................................................... 28

Figure 12:FacultyPerceptionofInstructionalInfrastructure (n= 98)....................................................... 30

Figure13:PerceptionofCampusFacilities(n= 196).................................................................................. 31Figure14: Perceptionof CampusParking(n= 197) ................................................................................... 32

Figure15: Perceptionof CampusSafety(n= 205) ..................................................................................... 33

Figure 16:TechnologyInfrastructure (n= 195).......................................................................................... 34

Figure17: PerceptionofExecutiveLeadership(n =181)........................................................................... 35

Figure 18:HumanResources(n= 194)....................................................................................................... 39

Figure19: CampusDiversity(n= 194) ........................................................................................................ 40

Figure 20:LevelofAwarenessaboutCampusEvents(n= 192)................................................................. 41

Figure21:Level ofAwarenessaboutDivision/UnitEvents(n =192)......................................................... 42

Figure 22:Staff/FacultyInformedaboutStudentServices(n= 181)......................................................... 42

Figure23: PreferredMethodof Communication(n= 192)........................................................................ 43Figure24:FamiliaritywithCollegeDecision-MakingProcesses(n= 171).................................................. 44

Figure25:FamiliaritywithCollegeDecision-MakingProcesses byBargaining Unit.................................. 45

Figure26:FamiliaritywithCollegeDecision-MakingProcessesbyLengthofEmployment...................... 46

Figure27:FamiliaritywithCollegeDecision-MakingProcessesby Level ofAwarenessaboutCampus

Events.......................................................................................................................................................... 47

Figure28:FamiliaritywithCollegeDecision-MakingProcessesbySense ofCommunity.......................... 48

Figure29:FamiliaritywithCollegeDecision-MakingProcessesInstruction(n= 91).............................. 49

Figure30:FamiliaritywithCollegeDecision-MakingProcessesInstructionbyLengthofEmployment.50

Figure31:FamiliaritywithCollegeDecision-MakingProcessesInstructionbySenseofCommunity....51

Figure32:EffectivenessofCollegeDecision-MakingProcesses(College-Wide)........................................ 52Figure33:EffectivenessofCollegeDecision-Making ProcessesbyBargaining Unit.................................. 53

Figure34:EffectivenessofCollegeDecision-Making ProcessesbyLengthofEmployment...................... 54

Figure35:EffectivenessofCollegeDecision-MakingProcessesby Familiaritywith CollegeDecision-

MakingProcesses........................................................................................................................................ 55

Figure36:EffectivenessofCollegeDecision-Making ProcessesbySense ofCommunity......................... 56

Figure37:EffectivenessofCollegeDecision-Making Processes(Instruction)............................................ 57


5/117


4FIGURES

Figure38:EffectivenessofCollegeDecision-Making Processes(Instruction)bySense ofCommunity....58

Figure39:EffectivenessofCollegeDecision-MakingProcesses(Instruction)byFamiliarity with Decision-

MakingProcesses........................................................................................................................................ 59

Figure40: PrideatIVC(n=146) ................................................................................................................. 61

Figure 41:WordCloudfrom CommentsaboutPride atIVC....................................................................... 62

Figure 42:ImprovementatIVC(n= 154).................................................................................................... 64

Figure43: WordCloudfrom CommentsaboutImprovementatIVC......................................................... 66

Figure44:Additional Comments(n= 86)................................................................................................... 68

Figure 45:WordCloudfrom AdditionalComments................................................................................... 69

Figure 46:BargainingUnit.......................................................................................................................... 70

Figure47:FacultyClassification.................................................................................................................. 70

Figure48: EmploymentArea...................................................................................................................... 71

Figure 49:LengthofEmployment............................................................................................................... 71

Figure50:Raceand Ethnicity...................................................................................................................... 72

Figure 51:Gender....................................................................................................................................... 72


6/117


5TABLES

TABLES

Table 1:Methodology................................................................................................................................... 7

Table2:ResponseRates............................................................................................................................... 7

Table3:Overall Satisfaction by Bargaining Unit......................................................................................... 16

Table4:Overall Satisfaction by Area.......................................................................................................... 16

Table5:Overall Satisfaction by LengthofEmployment............................................................................. 17

Table 6:OverallSatisfactionbySenseofCommunity................................................................................ 17

Table 7:Rating ofCampusEnvironmentforEmployeesbyBargaining Unit.............................................. 20

Table 8:Rating ofCampusEnvironmentforEmployeesbyLengthofEmployment.................................. 21

Table 9:ImprovementofCampusEnvironmentforEmployeesbyBargaining Unit.................................. 22

Table 10:ImprovementofCampusEnvironmentforEmployeesbyArea................................................. 22

Table 11:ImprovementofCampusEnvironmentforEmployeesbyLengthofEmployment....................23

Table 12:ImprovementofCampusEnvironmentforEmployeesbySense ofCommunity....................... 23

Table 13:JobClimate byBargainingUnitandLengthofEmployment....................................................... 26Table14:Job ClimatebyArea..................................................................................................................... 26

Table 15:GoodProceduretoDevelopCoursesbyLengthofEmployment............................................... 29

Table 16:FacultyAreEncouragedtoDevelopNew CoursesbyLengthofEmployment........................... 29

Table 17:PerceptionofPresident'sCommunicationbyLengthofEmployment....................................... 36

Table 18:PerceptionofPresident'sCommunicationbySense ofCommunity.......................................... 36

Table 19:PerceptionofPresident'sCommunicationbyImprovementofCampusEnvironmentfor

Employees................................................................................................................................................... 37

Table 20:PerceptionofIVCAdministrative LeadershipbyBargaining Unit............................................... 37

Table21:Perception ofIVCAdministrative LeadershipbySenseofCommunity...................................... 38

Table 22:PerceptionofIVCAdministrative LeadershipbyImprovementofCampusEnvironmentforEmployees................................................................................................................................................... 38

Table 23:ImprovementatIVCbyBargaining Unit..................................................................................... 65


7/117


6INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

TheIrvineValley CollegeMission StatementmaintainsthattheCollegeis committedto successfuland

measureable studentlearning throughhiring exemplaryfacultyandstaff,accesstostateoftheart

technologiesand facilities,and by providinga varietyoftraditional and innovativeteachingmethods.In

ordertofulfill itsmission,theCollegemustfostera collegeenvironmentthatattractsandsupports

excellentfaculty,staff,andstudents.Inthespringof2009,theOffice ofResearch,Planning,and

Accreditationconducteda comprehensiveclimatesurveyofIVCemployees.Thesurvey providescritical

and timelyinformation abouthowCollegeemployeesperceivea widerangeofissuesrelatedto their

compensation,benefits,professionaldevelopment,workplace conditions,communications,familiarity

withcollege-widedecision-makingprocesses,andjobsatisfaction.The reportisorganizedintothe

followingsections:

TheExecutive Summaryprovidesa summaryofkeyfindingsfromthe survey.

The Detailed Findings sectionoffersanalysesofeachquestioninthe surveyandispresentedinthefollowingway:

EmployeeSatisfactionandCampusEnvironmentonPage15

InstructiononPage28

CampusFacilitiesonPage30

TechnologyInfrastructureonPage34

LeadershiponPage35

HumanResourcesonPage39

LevelsofCommunicationonPage41

CollegeDecision-MakingProcessesonPage44

Open-EndedResponsesonPage60

Appendix Apresentsthe demographicdataofstudentswhoparticipatedinthesurvey.

Appendix Bprovidesthesurveyinstrument.

Appendix Cincludestheverbatimresponsestotheopen-endedcommentsquestionaskedatthe

endofthesurvey.


8/117


7INTRODUCTION

Methodology

Administeredinthespringfrom April22toMay28using anon-linesurveymethodology, the2009

EmployeeSatisfactionSurveywas senttoallemployeesvia an e-mail invitation.By theendofthefield

date,208IVCemployees participatedinthesurvey.Onaverage,the surveytookslightlylessthan17

minutestocomplete(mediantime ofcompletion= 14minutes).

Table 1: Methodology

Table 2shows thesurveyresponseratebyemployeeclass.Amongall employeesworkingduring the

springsemester,32percentparticipated in theemployeesatisfaction survey; however,responserates

among part-time facultyandstaffweresignificantlylowerthanthe response ratesamongfull-time

employees.Nearly 63percentofIVCfull-timeemployeesrespondedtothesurvey.

Table 2: Response Rates

Technique Internetsurveyin English

Interview Length 17minutes

Field Dates April 22- May28

Sample Size 208

Employee Class Sample Population Response Rate

Administrators/Managers 14 23 60.9%

Full-Time Faculty 87 105 82.9%

Classified Bargaining Unit 79 158 50.0%

Classified Non-Bargaining 9 82 11.0%

Part-Time Faculty 19 286 6.6%

Total 208 654 31.8%

Total Full-Time Employees Only 180 286 62.9%


9/117


8INTRODUCTION

Executive Summary

Manystudieshaveestablished directand quantifiablelinksbetween customerservicevariables(e.g.,

satisfactionandloyalty),employeevariables (e.g.,satisfaction,enthusiasm,loyalty,commitment,

capability,and internal servicequality),and financial results.Forexample,Gallupreportsthathighly

satisfied groupsofemployeesoftenexhibitabove-averagelevelsofthefollowingcharacteristics:customerloyalty; productivity; employeeretention;safetyrecords; and profitability.Inaddition,recent

researchbyThomasWright,theJonWefaldLeadershipChairinBusiness Administrationandprofessor

ofmanagementatKansasState,has foundthatemployeeswithhigh levelsofpsychological well-being

and job satisfaction performbetterandarelesslikelytoleavetheirjob. Employee happiness,then,

becomesavaluable toolformaximizing organizationaloutcomes.1

Employee Satisfaction and Campus Environment

In2009,mostemployee respondentsreportedthattheyweresatisfiedwithIVC. About42percentof

survey respondentsindicated thattheywereVerysatisfiedandanother40percentreported thatthey

wereSomewhatsatisfied.Lookingmoreclosely atoverall satisfaction,membersof thefaculty(46%Very satisfied)and collegeadministrators(57%Verysatisfied)registeredslightlymoreintenselevels

ofsatisfactionthantheclassifiedstaff(35%Verysatisfied),althoughtotalsatisfactionlevels were

similaracross allbargainingunits.Interestingly,neweremployees(fiveyearsorless)and long-time

employees(21+years)reported thehighestlevelofoverall satisfaction,whereasemployeesthathave

worked atIVCfromsixtotwentyyearshadrelativelylowerlevelsofsatisfaction.

Surveyrespondentsweremostsatisfiedwith theiremploymentbenefits,followed by theirrelationships

withtheirco-workers, their currentposition, their salaries,and theirrelationshipswiththeirsupervisors.

Onaverage,thesurveyrespondents wereat leastSomewhatsatisfiedwiththeseareas oftheir

employment.Therespondentswerelesslikely tobesatisfied withtheiropportunitiesforpersonal

growth,opportunitiestomake suggestions,andopportunitiesforadvancement. Responseswere similar

forbothmembersofthe facultyandclassifiedstaffexceptinthree areaswhere facultymembers

registeredsignificantly higherlevelsofsatisfaction: Opportunitiesforadvancement(meandifference

= +1.10;% differenceinsatisfaction= 33%);Opportunitiesforpersonalgrowth(meandifference=

+0.77;% differenceinsatisfaction=25%);andSalary(meandifference= +0.47;% differencein

satisfaction= 16%).

Next,employeeswere askedtorate thecampusenvironmentforemployeesatIVC. About57percent

reporteda positive ratingofthe campusenvironment(15.4%Excellent;42.8%Good),a quarterof

respondents(26.0%)believedthatthecampusenvironmentwasFair,while15percentgavea

negativeratingof thecampusenvironment(12.5% Poor;2.4% Verypoor).Classifiedstaff members

weremorelikelytoratetheenvironmentasFairratherthanExcellentorGoodthan othercampus

bargainingunits.

1See,forexample:Sweetman,KatherineJ.EmployeeLoyaltyAroundtheGlobe,SloanManagementReview (January2001);Wright,Thomas

A.,Cropanzano,Russell,andBonett,DouglasG.Journalof Occupational HealthPsychology. 12:2(April 2007),pp. 93-104.Harter,JamesK.

TakingFeedbacktotheBottomLine,Gallup ManagementJournal(March 15,2001)http://gmj.gallup.com/content/814/taking-feedback-

bottom-line.aspx.


10/117


9INTRODUCTION

Apluralityofrespondents(38.0%)feltthatthe campusenvironmentforemployeeswasimproving,

while abouta thirdofrespondents(33.2%)believedthatthecampusenvironmentwasstaying about

the same. Twenty-fourpercentofemployee respondentsfeltthatthe campusenvironmentwasgetting

worse. Classifiedstaffmembersweremuchlesspositive thanemployeesfrom the othergroupson

campus:only21percentofclassifiedstaffmembersindicatedthatthe campusenvironmentwas

Gettingbetter,more than30percentlessthanmembersofthe facultyoradministration.

Surveyrespondentswerealsoasked toassessthecampusenvironmentforstudents.Employeeswere

muchmorepositive aboutthe campusenvironmentforstudentswith76percentindicatingthatthe

campusenvironmentforstudentswaseitherExcellent(28.8%)orGood(47.6%). Fifteenpercent

gave the campusenvironmentforstudentsa Fairrating (14.9%),while onlytwopercentfeltthatthe

campusenvironmentforstudentswasPoor(none ofthe surveyrespondentsthoughtthatthe campus

environmentfor studentswasVery poor).Whenaskedaboutthe improvementofthecampus

environmentforstudents,45percentofemployee respondentsindicatedthatthe campusenvironment

wasGettingbetterandonlysixpercentindicated thatit wasGettingworse.Fortypercentfeltthat

the campusenvironmentforstudentswasStaying aboutthesame.

Similarly,approximately45percentofemployeerespondentsfeltthatstudentprogramsand servicesat

IVCwereGettingbetter,39percentbelieved thatprogramsand serviceswereStayingaboutthe

same,andonlysixpercentfeltthatIVC programs andservices wereGettingworse.

Inaddition,respondentswere askedseveralquestionsthatindirectlymeasureemployeesperceptionof

theirjobclimate.Amongtheseitems,70percentofrespondentsagreed thattheregularlyreceivethe

informationthattheyneed,66percentbelievedthattheyare treatedwithrespectanddignity,and64

percent felt thattheyhave theopportunitytoparticipate inthe college decision-makingprocess.

Majoritiesofemployeerespondentsagreed thatprofessional developmentactivitiesareencouraged by

thecollege(61%),andthattheirworkisappreciated (59%).Adjunctfacultymembers andclassifiedstaff

memberswerelesslikelytoagreethattheyregularlyreceivetheinformation thattheyneed,havethe

opportunitytoparticipate insharedgovernance,are treatedwithrespect,andare encouragedto

pursue professionaldevelopmentactivities.Inaddition,classified staffmemberswerelesslikelytofeel

thattheirworkis appreciated.Neweremployees(


11/117


10INTRODUCTION

opportunitiesforpersonalgrowth,salary,andbenefits. In otherwords,datafrom the surveyshowthat

overall satisfaction is driven by feelingsofinclusiveness,appreciation,and respectratherthanindividual

levels ofpay,advancement,orbenefits.

Instruction

Full-timefaculty memberswereaskeda variety ofquestionsaboutvariousinstructionalprocedures,aspectsofteaching,andothercurriculum matters.Large majoritiesagreedthatthe facultydetermines

studentcompetency(91%),instructorsarefairand objective(89%)andstudentsareabletoenroll in

lowerlevel courses(86%).Seventy-five percentoffull-timefacultyrespondentsfeltthatadvanced

coursesareofferedfrequently andanother 71 percentagreedthatfaculty membersareencouragedto

developnewcoursesandprograms. Abouttwo-thirdsofthefull-time facultyrespondents(66%)

believedthattheyaresupportedwhendeveloping newcoursesandprograms.Onlya slightmajorityof

respondents(52%)agreedthatIVChasagoodprocedure fordeveloping newcoursesandprograms.

Furtheranalysisshowedthatnewerfull-timefacultysurvey respondents(


12/117


11INTRODUCTION

respondentsfeltthatcampuslighting atnightisgood. Slightmajoritiesagreedthat therestroomsare

cleanandwell-maintained(56%)andthatcampusbuildingsarecomfortable (53%).

Over80percentoffacultymembersthatansweredthe surveyagreedthatIVCprovidescurrent

instructional equipmentforlectures(84%)andclassroomlightingisgood(82%).Significantlyfewer(but

still overa majority of)respondentsindicatedthatclassroomsarecleanandwell-maintained(55%).Whileonly52percentoffacultywhorespondedtothesurvey indicated thatcampuslabequipmentis

up-to-date,a sizable percentage (31%)indicatedthattheydidnothave anopinionaboutthisquestion,

ostensiblybecause these facultymembersdonotteachcourseswithlabs.Once Dontknowopinions

arefiltered out,75percentofrespondentsbelievedthatthe labequipmentisup-to-date.

According tothe survey,mostIVCemployeesfeelsafe whileoncampus:about66percentof

respondentsindicatedthattheywereVerysafe andsecureandanother26percentreportedthatthey

wereSomewhatsafeand secure.

Surveyrespondentswereequallypositive regarding parkingoncampus.Over85percentofemployees

inthe surveywere satisfiedwiththe maintenance oftheparking lots(87%),the safetyofthe parking

lots(85%),theavailabilityofparkingoncampus(85%),andparking lotlightingatnight(86%after

filteringoutDontknowresponses).

Technology Infrastructure

Resultsfromthe surveyprovide strong evidence thatthecampuscommunityfeelssupportedbythe

collegeIT staff. Strong majorities(over80%)indicatedthatthetechnologyemployedatIVCiscurrent

andreliable. Forexample,88percentofemployeeseitherStronglyorSomewhatagreedthat

Internetaccess at IVC is fastandreliable,whereas 86percentand83percentagreedthatTechnology

equipmentis reliableandComputer hardwareandsoftwareareup-to-date,respectively.Over86

percentagreedthatTechnologystaffisknowledgeable.Three outoffouremployeeseitherStronglyorSomewhatagreedthatIVCmaintains,upgrades,orreplacesitstechnologyinfrastructure and

equipmenttomeetinstructionalneeds(76%),IVC maintains,upgrades,orreplaces its technology

infrastructure andequipmenttomeetstaffneeds(76%),IVCprovideshighqualitytechnology

training(74%),andTechnologytraining addressesthediffering needsoffacultyandstaff(73%).

Human Resources

Nearly three-fourthsofrespondents(72.2%)agreedwiththestatementthatPersonnelpoliciesand

proceduresareeasytoobtainandreview.Sevenoutoftenrespondents (69.1%)agreedthatCampus

publicationsclearly andadequately reflectactual practicesattheCollege.Fifty-ninepercentofsurvey

respondentseitherstrongly(37.6%)orsomewhat(21.6%)agreed thatPersonnel recordsarekeptconfidential.A sizable percentage ofemployees(25.3%),however,selectedDontknowwhenasked

thisquestion.Similarpercentagesofemployeesbelieved thatjob performanceevaluationsare

conductedsystematically atregularintervals(Strongly agree26.3%;Somewhatagree32.5%)and

encourage improvement(Stronglyagree25.8%;Somewhatagree31.4%).Abouta thirdof

respondents(36.1%and34.5%respectively)disagreedthatevaluationsare conductedregularly and

promptimprovement.


13/117


12INTRODUCTION

Ingeneral,IVCemployeeswhoresponded tothesurveywerequitepositivewhen assessingthecolleges

effortsinpromotinga diverse studentandemployeecommunity.Alarge majorityofemployees

believedthatIVCpromotesstudentdiversity(87%agreement),Employeespromotethedevelopment

ofa diverse educationalandculturalcampusenvironment(79%agreement),andthatIVCpromotes

employeediversity(72%agreement).

Levels of Communication

Mostemployeeswhorespondedtothe surveyindicatedthattheywere atleastsomewhatinformed

aboutcampusevents(83%SomewhatorVeryinformed)aswellaswhatisoccurring withintheir

schoolor department(84% Somewhator Veryinformed).Employeesindicated,however,higher

level ofawarenessaboutwhatis occurringin theirdepartmentorareathan atthecollegeoverall (52%

vs.28Veryinformedrespectively).Furthermore,69percentofemployeerespondentsagreed that

Staffandfacultymembersare keptinformedaboutsupportservicesavailable forstudents.

Whenaskedtorate the importanceofvariousmethodsofcommunicationasa source ofinformation

aboutcampusissues,respondentsoverwhelminglyratedelectronicmediaasthe mostimportant

methodofcommunication(i.e.,e-mail,IVCwebsite,andMySite). Manyrespondents,ontheotherhand,

did notseethecollegeintranetsitesorcollegecommitteemeetingsasimportantsourcesof

information.

College Decision-Making Processes

Inordertoassess employeesawareness ofchanges tothecolleges decision-making structures,the

survey asked all employeestoratehowfamiliarthey werewiththeneworrevised collegedecision-

makingprocesses. The surveyrevealed thatemployeerespondentsweremostfamiliarwiththeCollege

missionstatementandcollege goals,followedbyStrategicplanning,ThePlanningandDecision-

MakingManual,Collegebudgetdevelopmentprocess,and Classified hiringprioritylistdevelopment

process.With theexception oftheclassified hiringprioritylistdevelopmentprocess,facultymembers

weremorelikelytobe familiarwith collegedecision-makingprocesses thanclassifiedstaffmembers.

Employeeswhohave workedatIVCfor11yearsormore andemployeeswhoare more informedabout

campuseventsweremorefamiliarwithcollegedecision-makingprocessesthannewerandless

informed employees.

A seriesofquestionswerealsogiven tofull-timefacultymembersaswell ascollegeadministrators to

ratetheirfamiliaritywithneworrevisedinstructional processes.Respondentsin thesurvey weremost

familiarwithProgramreviewand theFull-timefaculty hiringprioritylistdevelopmentprocess,

followedbythe InstitutionalEffectivenessAnnualReport,Newprogram approvalpolicyand

procedures(academicprogramsandcareertechnologyeducation,Program discontinuance,andProgram realignment.Withtheexceptionofthe InstitutionalEffectivenessAnnualReport,

employeeswith longerserviceatIVCweremorelikely tobefamiliarwith instructional policiesand

proceduresthan employeeswithlessthan 11yearsofservice.

Afterassessingtheirfamiliarity ofneworrevised collegedecision-makingprocesses,employeeswere

given thechancetoassesstheeffectivenessoftheseprocesses.Theresultsrevealed thatemployeesin


14/117


13INTRODUCTION

thesurveyrated theCollegemission statementandcollegegoals,The planning anddecision-making

manual,andStrategicplanningas themosteffective.Therespondentsrated theeffectivenessofthe

Collegebudgetdevelopmentprocessslightly lowerand rated theClassified hiringprioritylist

developmentprocessasleasteffectiveoftheprocessestestedin thesurvey.Indeed,less thanhalf

(46%)indicated thattheclassified hiringprioritylistdevelopmentprocesswaseffective(Veryeffective

13.0%;Somewhateffective32.5%).Differencesbetweenfacultyand classified staffmembers

appearedwhenevaluatingtheeffectivenessoftheplanninganddecision-making manual,strategic

planning,andtheclassifiedhiringprocess.Thegreatestdifferencein perception ofeffectiveness

occurredwhen respondentsevaluatedtheclassified hiringprioritylistdevelopmentprocess(Faculty:

70.3% VeryorSomewhateffective; Classified: 42.0%VeryorSomewhateffective).In general,

employeeswhohaveworked atIVCforlessthan elevenyearsrated theeffectivenessofcollege

decision-making processeshigherthanemployeeswhohave workedatIVClonger. Perhapsmore

importantly,respondentswhowereVery familiarwithcollegedecision-making processesratedthe

effectivenesstheprocessessignificantly higherthanthosewhowereeitherSomewhatorA little

familiar,suggestingthatincreased awarenesscould potentiallydriveup perceptionsofeffectiveness.

When assessingtheeffectivenessofinstructionalpoliciesandprocedures,Programreviewwas seen

as themosteffective,onaverage,thantheFull-timefacultyhiringprioritylistdevelopmentprocess,

Newprogram approvalpolicyandprocedures(academicprogramsandcareertechnologyeducation),

InstitutionalEffectivenessAnnualReport,Program realignment,andProgram discontinuance.

Similartothecollegedecision-makingprocesses,familiaritywith thevariousinstructional policiesand

proceduresconditionedperceptionsofeffectiveness.Thatis,respondentswhowereVeryfamiliar

with theprocessesgavemuchhigherratingsofeffectivenessthanthosewhowerelessfamiliarwiththe

processes.

Sense of CommunityOneconceptthatwasmeasuredinthe surveyrelatestotheSenseofCommunityfeltbyIVC

employees.Researchers havedefinedsenseofcommunityasafeelingthatmembershave of

belonging,a feelingthatmembersmattertooneanotherandtothe group,anda sharedfaiththat

membersneedswill bemetthroughtheircommitmenttobe together.2

Resultsfromthesurveyshowthatfeelingsofsharedcommunityclosely trackedwith overall

satisfaction,perceptions aboutadministrativeleadership,andevaluations ofcampus decision-making

processes.Consistentwithotherresearchfindings,sense ofcommunitywasstrongly correlatedwith

overallsatisfaction: three-fifthsof respondents(61.7%)whoagreedthatIVChasa strongsenseof

communitywereVerysatisfiedwithIVC, whereasonly13 percentof respondentswhodisagreedthat

IVChasa strong senseofcommunitywere Verysatisfied.Inaddition,employeeswitha strongsense

Researchhasshownthat

feelingsofcommunity correspond with satisfactionslevelswithlife,work,neighborhoods,interest

groups,andstudentcommunities.AtIVC,60percentofthesurveyedemployeesagreedthatIVChasa

strong sense ofcommunity.Aboutone outoffouremployees,however,Somewhatdisagreedand

another13percentStronglydisagreedthatIVChasa strong sense ofcommunity.

2McMillan,D.,andChavis,D.(1986).SenseofCommunity:ADefinition and Theory.Journalof CommunityPsychology.14,pp. 6-23.


15/117


14INTRODUCTION

ofcommunitywere muchmore likelytoreportanimprovementinthecampusenvironmentthatthose

witha weaksense ofcommunity.

Feelingsofshared communityatIVCalsowerecorrelated with perceptionsoftheadministrative

leadershipatthe college. Forexample,about82percentofemployeeswhobelieve thatIVChasa strong

sense ofcommunityagreedthatthepresidentcommunicatesregularlywith all constituencies;conversely,only37percentofemployeeswhodisagree thatIVChasa strong sense ofcommunity

expressed the same opinion. Similarly,76percentofemployeeswitha strong sense ofcommunity

agreed thatthecollegeadministrationprovideseffectiveleadership,butonly25percentofemployees

witha weaksense ofcommunityhadthe sameperceptionsofeffectiveness.

Lastly,feelinga senseofcommunityatIVCstrongly correlated with opinionsaboutboththefamiliarity

withandeffectivenessofcollegedecision-making processes. Forexample,59percentemployeeswitha

strong sense ofcommunityreportedthattheyweresomewhatorveryfamiliarwiththePlanning and

Decision-MakingManual,whereas41percentofemployeeswithaweaksenseof community were

familiarwiththe manual.Whencomparing perceptionsofeffectivenessofthePlanningandDecision-

Making Manual,87percentofemployeeswitha strong sense ofcommunityfeltthatthemanualwas

effective.Conversely,only 47percentofemployeeswitha weaksenseofcommunityratedthe manual

asan effectiveprocess.


16/117


15EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION ANDCAMPUSENVIRONMENT

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AND CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT

Thefirstseriesofsubstantivequestionsasked employeesabouttheiroverall level ofsatisfaction with

IVCaswell astheirperceptionsandbeliefsaboutthecampusenvironment. Manyresearchstudieshave

shownthatwhenemployee satisfactionishigh,ittranslatesintoincreasedproductivity,commitment

andretentionfororganizations. Askinganoverallsatisfactionquestionearlyin thesurvey allowsforan

initial,unvarnishedassessmentofsatisfaction by IVCemployees.

In2009,mostemployee respondentsreportedthattheyweresatisfiedwithIVC. About42percentof

survey respondentsindicated thattheywereVerysatisfiedandanother40percentreportedthatthey

wereSomewhatsatisfied.About11percentindicatedthattheywere Somewhatdissatisfiedand six

percentwereVerydissatisfiedwithIVC.

Figure 1: Overall Satisfaction (n = 208)

Verysatisfied

41.8%

Somewhat

satisfied

40.9%

Somewhatdissatisfied

10.6%

Verydissatisfied

6.3%

DK/NA

0.5%


17/117



Lookingmorecloselyatoverall satisfaction (Table 3), membersof thefaculty(46% Very satisfied)and

collegeadministrators(57%Verysatisfied)registeredslightly moreintenselevelsofsatisfactionthan

theclassifiedstaff(35%Verysatisfied),althoughtotalsatisfactionlevels weresimilaracross all

bargainingunits. Similarly,Table 4employeesinStudentServicesregisteredslightly lesssatisfaction

thanemployeesinotherareasoncampus.

Table 3: Overall Satisfaction by Bargaining Unit

NOTE: Results do not include Dont know or missing responses.

Table 4: Overall Satisfaction by Area


Faculty

(n = 106)

Classified

(n = 87)

Administration

(n = 14)

Total

(n = 207)

Very satisfied 46.2% 34.5% 57.1% 42.0%

Somewhat satisfied 36.8% 47.1% 35.7% 41.1%

Somewhat dissatisfied 10.4% 12.6% 0.0% 10.6%

Very dissatisfied 6.6% 5.7% 7.1% 6.3%

Instruction

(n = 121)

Student Services

(n = 47)

Other

(n = 39)

Total

(n = 207)

Very satisfied 46.3% 36.2% 35.9% 42.0%

Somewhat satisfied 38.0% 38.3% 53.8% 41.1%

Somewhat dissatisfied 8.3% 19.1% 7.7% 10.6%

Very dissatisfied 7.4% 6.4% 2.6% 6.3%


18/117



Interestingly,neweremployees(fiveyearsorless)and long-timeemployeesreported thehighestlevel

ofoverallsatisfaction,whereas employees thathaveworkedat IVC fromsixtotwentyyears had

relatively lowerlevelsofsatisfaction.

Table 5: Overall Satisfaction by Length of Employment


Table 6showsthatoverall satisfaction isstrongly correlated withhowemployeesfeel a senseof

communityatIVC.Forexample,three-fifthsofrespondents(61.7%)whoagreedthatIVChasa strong

senseof communitywereVery satisfiedwithIVC, whereasonly13 percentof respondentswho

disagreedthatIVChasa strong sense ofcommunitywereVery satisfied.

Table 6: Overall Satisfaction by Sense of Community

NOTE: Respondents with a Strong sense of community either Strongly or Somewhat agreed that IVC has a strong sense of community;

respondents with a Weak sense of community disagreed with this sentiment. Dont know and missing responses are not included.

Laterin thesurvey,employeeswereasked toassesstheirsatisfaction levelswith variousspecificaspects

pertaining totheirjobsuchas,theirsalary,employeebenefits,and relationshipswith theirsupervisors

andco-workers.Toeasecomparisons amongtheseitems,responseswerecodedsuchthat,Very

satisfied= +2,Somewhatsatisfied=+1,Somewhatdissatisfied= -1,andVerydissatisfied= -2.

The responseswere thenaggregatedtoform a meansatisfactionscore foreachemploymentaspect

testedinthesurvey.

< 3 years

(n = 31)

3 to 5 years

(n = 38)

6 to 10 years

(n = 43)

11 to 20 years

(n = 61)

21+ years

(n = 34)

Total

(n = 207)

Very satisfied 51.6% 36.8% 48.8% 36.1% 41.2% 42.0%

Somewhat satisfied 41.9% 52.6% 25.6% 41.0% 47.1% 41.1%

Somewhat dissatisfied 6.5% 5.3% 14.0% 16.4% 5.9% 10.6%

Very dissatisfied 0.0% 5.3% 11.6% 6.6% 5.9% 6.3%

Strong Sense

of Community

(n = 107)

Weak Sense

of Community

(n = 69)

Total

(n = 176)

Very satisfied 61.7% 13.0% 42.6%

Somewhat satisfied 31.8% 52.2% 39.8%

Somewhat dissatisfied 4.7% 20.3% 10.8%

Very dissatisfied 1.9% 14.5% 6.8%


19/117



Figure2showsthatsurveyrespondentswere mostsatisfiedwiththeiremploymentbenefits(1.51),

followed by theirrelationshipswith theirco-workers(1.30), theircurrentposition (1.24),theirsalaries

(1.00),and theirrelationshipswiththeirsupervisors(1.00).Becausethemeanscoresforthesespecific

aspectsofemploymentwereequal toorgreaterthanone,this means that,onaverage,thesurvey

respondentswereatleastSomewhatsatisfiedwiththeseareasoftheiremployment.Therespondents

werelesslikelytobesatisfied with theiropportunitiesforpersonalgrowth(0.51),opportunitiestomake

suggestions(0.42),andopportunitiesforadvancement(0.29). Toillustratethedifferencesin themean

scores,89percentofemployeerespondentsindicated thattheyweresatisfied with theiremployee

benefits(69%Verysatisfiedand20% Somewhatsatisfied).Bycomparison,55percentofemployee

respondentsindicatedthattheyweresatisfiedwiththeiropportunitiesforadvancement(24%Very

satisfiedand31%Somewhatsatisfied).

Figure 2: Satisfaction with Specific Aspects of Employment

0.29

0.42

0.51

1.00

1.00

1.24

1.30

1.51

-2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00

Opportunitiesforadvancement(n = 171)

Opportunitiestomakesuggestions(n = 187)

Opportunitiesforpersonalgrowth (n =188)

Relationship with supervisor(n =189)

Salary (n = 189)

CurrentPosition (n =191)

Relationshipwithco-workers(n =189)

Benefits(n =184)

Very

unsatisfied

Somewhat

unsatisfied

Somewhat

satisfied

Very

satisfied


20/117



Figure3comparesthelevelsofsatisfaction with specificaspectsofemploymentacrossfacultymembers

andclassifiedstaff. Forthemostpart,the responseswithsimilarforbothbargaininggroupsexceptin

threeareaswherefacultymembersregistered significantlyhigherlevelsofsatisfaction: Opportunities

foradvancement(meandifference= +1.10;% differenceinsatisfaction=33%);Opportunitiesfor

personalgrowth(meandifference= +0.77; % differencein satisfaction =25%);andSalary(mean

difference= +0.47;% differenceinsatisfaction=16%).

Figure 3: Satisfaction with Specific Aspects of Employment by Bargaining Unit

0.78

0.56

0.84

1.11

1.20

1.39

1.26

1.43

-0.32

0.18

0.06

0.84

0.72

1.01

1.32

1.59

-2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00

Opportunitiesforadvancement

Opportunitiesto makesuggestions

Opportunitiesforpersonalgrowth

Relationshipwithsupervisor

Salary

Current Position

Relationshipwithco-workers

Benefits

Classified

Faculty

Very

unsatisfied

Somewhat

unsatisfied

Somewhat

satisfied

Very

satisfied


21/117



Campus Environment

Next,employeeswere askedtorate thecampusenvironmentforemployeesatIVC. About57percent

reported a positiveratingofthecampusenvironment(15.4%Excellent;42.8%Good).Abouta

quarterofrespondents(26.0%)believedthatthecampusenvironmentwasFair,while15percent

gave a negative ratingofthe campusenvironment(12.5%Poor;2.4% Very poor).

Figure 4: Rating of Campus Environment for Employees (n = 208)

Looking atratingsofthecampusenvironmentbysubgroups,classified staffmembersweremorelikely

torate theenvironmentasFairratherthanExcellentorGoodthanotherbargainingunits.Table 8

showsthatemployeeswhohaveworkedatIVCfor 11 to20 yearswerethemostlikelytoreport that the

campusenvironmentwaseitherPoororVerypoor.

Table 7: Rating of Campus Environment for Employees by Bargaining Unit


Excellent

15.4%

Good

42.8%

Fair

26.0%

Poor

12.5%

Verypoor

2.4%

DK/NA

1.0%

Faculty

(n = 104)

Classified

(n = 88)

Administration

(n = 14)

Total

(n = 206)

Excellent/Good 66.3% 47.7% 71.4% 58.7%

Fair 19.2% 35.2% 21.4% 26.2%

Poor/Very poor 14.4% 17.0% 7.1% 15.0%


22/117



Table 8: Rating of Campus Environment for Employees by Length of Employment


Afterrating the campusenvironment,respondentswere askedwhetherthe campusenvironmentfor

employeeswasgetting better,getting worse,orstaying aboutthe same. A pluralityofrespondents

(38.0%)feltthatthe campusenvironmentwasimproving. Abouta thirdofrespondents(33.2%)believed

thatthecampusenvironmentwasnotchangingandanother24percentfeltthatthecampusenvironmentwasgetting worse.Aboutfive percentdidnotanswerthisquestion.

Figure 5: Improvement of Campus Environment for Employees (n = 208)

< 3 years

(n = 30)

3 to 5 years

(n = 39)

6 to 10 years

(n = 43)

11 to 20 years

(n = 60)

21+ years

(n = 34)

Total

(n = 206)

Excellent/Good 80.0% 53.8% 60.5% 46.7% 64.7% 58.7%

Fair 13.3% 35.9% 25.6% 28.3% 23.5% 26.2%

Poor/Very poor 6.7% 10.3% 14.0% 25.0% 11.8% 15.0%

Gettingbetter

38.0%

Stayingabout

thesame

33.2%

Gettingworse

23.6%

DK/NA

5.3%


23/117



Table 9shows thattherewas a cleardifferenceamong bargaininggroupsonwhetherornotthecampus

environmenthasimproved. Classifiedstaffwasmuchlesspositive thantheothergroupsoncampus:

only21percentofclassifiedstaffindicatedthatthecampusenvironmentwasGettingbetter,more

than30percentlessthanmembersofthe facultyoradministration. Indeed,39percentofthe classified

staffindicatedthatthecampusenvironmentforemployeeswasGettingworse.

Table 9: Improvement of Campus Environment for Employees by Bargaining Unit


Surveyrespondentsfrom instructionappeartobe more positive aboutthedirectionofthecampus

environmentthanrespondentsfromtheotherareas(seeTable10).Table11showsthatemployeesin

thesurveythathaveworkedatIVCfor 11 to20 yearswerethemostpessimisticwith35 percent

indicatingthatthe campusenvironmentwasGettingworse.Lastly,Table 12revealsthatemployees

withstrong sense ofcommunityweremuchmorelikelytonoticeanimprovementinthe campus

environmentthanemployeeswitha weak sense ofcommunity.

Table 10: Improvement of Campus Environment for Employees by Area


Faculty

(n = 101)

Classified

(n = 82)

Administration

(n = 14)

Total

(n = 197)

Getting better 53.5% 20.7% 57.1% 40.1%

Staying about the same 30.7% 40.2% 35.7% 35.0%

Getting worse 15.8% 39.0% 7.1% 24.9%

Instruction

(n = 115)

Student Services

(n = 45)

Other

(n = 37)

Total

(n = 197)

Getting better 53.0% 15.6% 29.7% 40.1%

Staying about the same 28.7% 48.9% 37.8% 35.0%

Getting worse 18.3% 35.6% 32.4% 24.9%


24/117



Table 11: Improvement of Campus Environment for Employees by Length of Employment


Table 12: Improvement of Campus Environment for Employees by Sense of Community


Subsequenttoanswering questionsregarding thecampusenvironmentforemployees,survey

respondentswereaskedtoassessthecampusenvironmentforstudents.Here,employeesweremore

positive with76percentindicating thatthe campusenvironmentforstudentswaseitherExcellent

(28.8%)or Good(47.6%).Fifteenpercentgave the campusenvironmentforstudentsa Fairrating

(14.9%). OnlytwopercentfeltthatthecampusenvironmentforstudentswasPoorandnone ofthe

surveyrespondentsthoughtthatthe campusenvironmentforstudentswasVerypoor.

Figure 6: Rating of Campus Environment for Students (n = 208)

< 3 years

(n = 23)

3 to 5 years

(n = 38)

6 to 10 years

(n = 43)

11 to 20 years

(n = 60)

21+ years

(n = 33)

Total

(n = 197)

Getting better 69.6% 34.2% 37.2% 35.0% 39.4% 40.1%

Staying about the same 30.4% 39.5% 34.9% 30.0% 42.4% 35.0%

Getting worse 0.0% 26.3% 27.9% 35.0% 18.2% 24.9%

Strong Sense

of Community

(n = 105)

Weak Sense

of Community

(n = 66)

Total

(n = 171)

Getting better 50.5% 24.2% 40.4%

Staying about the same 30.5% 42.4% 35.1%

Getting worse 19.0% 33.3% 24.6%

Excellent

28.8%

Good

47.6%

Fair

14.9%

Poor

1.9%

DK/NA

6.7%


25/117



Whenaskedaboutthe improvementofthecampusenvironmentforstudents,45percentofemployee

respondentsindicatedthatthecampusenvironmentwasGettingbetterandonly sixpercentindicated

that it wasGettingworse.Fortypercent felt thatthecampusenvironmentforstudentswasStaying

aboutthe same.

Figure 7: Improvement of Campus Environment for Students (n = 208)

Next,respondentswere askedaboutthe improvementofprogramsandservicesofferedbyIVC.

Approximately45percentofemployeerespondentsfeltthatprogramsandserviceswereGetting

better,39percentbelieved thatprogramsand serviceswereStayingaboutthesame,andsix percent

feltthatIVCprogramsandserviceswere Getting worse.Ten percentofrespondentsdidnotknowif

programs andservices haveimproved.

Figure 8: Improvement of Programs and Services (n = 208)

Gettingbetter

44.7%

Stayingabout

thesame

40.4%

Gettingworse

6.3%

DK/NA

8.7%

Gettingbetter

45.2%

Stayingabout

thesame

38.5%

Gettingworse

6.3%

DK/NA

10.1%


26/117



Laterin thesurvey,respondentswereasked several questionsthatindirectlymeasureemployees

perceptionoftheirjobclimate.Amongtheseitems,70percentofrespondentsagreedthatthey

regularlyreceive theinformationthattheyneed,66percentbelievedthattheyaretreatedwith respect

anddignity,and64percentfeltthattheyhavetheopportunitytoparticipateinthecollegedecision-

makingprocess.Majoritiesofemployeerespondentsagreed thatprofessional developmentactivities

areencouragedby thecollege(61%),thatIVC has a strongsenseofcommunity(60%),andthattheir

workisappreciated(59%).

Figure 9: Job Climate (n = 181)

Table 13illustratesthatfull-timefacultytendedtohavemorepositiveratingsoftheirjobclimate than

adjunctfacultyorclassifiedstaff.Inparticular,adjunctfaculty membersandclassified staffwereless

likelytoagree thattheyregularlyreceive the informationthattheyneed,have the opportunityto

participateinshared governance,aretreated withrespect,andareencouragedtopursueprofessional

developmentactivities. Inaddition,classified staffmemberswerelesslikelytofeel thattheirworkis

appreciated.The tablealsoshowsthatnewer employees(


27/117



Table 13: Job Climate by Bargaining Unit and Length of Employment

NOTE: Results presented in the table represent the percentages of each group that either Strongly or Somewhat agreed with the statement.

Dont know responses are not included in the analyses.

Differencesbetweencollegeareasemergeonly in a fewaspectsofjob climate.Employeesworkingin

instructionweremorelikely toagreethatprofessional developmentactivitiesareencouraged and

supportedthan employeesin studentservicesorthepresidentsarea(i.e.,Other).Employeesin

studentservicesweretheleastlikelytofeel thattheirworkis appreciated; however,theywerethemost

likelytofeelthatIVChasa strong sense ofcommunity.

Table 14: Job Climate by Area

NOTE: Results presented in the table represent the percentages of each group that either Strongly or Somewhat agreed with the statement.

Dont know responses are not included in the analyses.

Full-Time

Faculty

(n = 78)

Adjunct

Faculty

(n = 19)

Classified

(n = 74)

< 11 years

(n = 84)

11+ years

(n = 97)

Total

(n = 181)

I regularly receive the information I need 78% 63% 60% 71% 69% 70%

I have the opportunity to participate in

shared governance 77% 29% 65% 68% 69% 69%

I am treated with respect and dignity 71% 53% 60% 71% 59% 65%

Professional development activities are

encouraged and supported 77% 60% 47% 58% 69% 63%

IVC has a strong sense of community 60% 59% 60% 70% 51% 61%

I feel my work is appreciated 60% 63% 53% 66% 51% 59%

Instruction

(n = 108)

Student Services

(n = 40)

Other

(n = 33)

Total

(n = 181)

I regularly receive the information I need 73% 69% 61% 70%

I have the opportunity to participate in

shared governance 70% 66% 69% 69%

I am treated with respect and dignity 67% 67% 59% 65%

Professional development activities are

encouraged and supported

72% 51% 47% 63%

IVC has a strong sense of community 58% 67% 66% 61%

I feel my work is appreciated 63% 50% 58% 59%


28/117



Figure10presents a modelofoverallsatisfactionatIVC.All itemsrelated tosatisfaction andjobclimate

wereenteredintoa factoranalysis andtwodistinct,butrelatedfactors emerged.3

Figure 10: Model of Employee Satisfaction

Thefirstfactor,

labeled Job Environment,includeditemsthatseemtobe relatedtogeneralworking conditions,

interpersonalrelationships,andfeelingsabouttheoveralljobclimate. The secondfactorappeared tobe

moreclosely related tosatisfaction withindividual aspectsofemploymentlikeopportunitiesfor

personalgrowth,salary,andbenefits.Becausetheseitems measurevarious aspects ofjobsatisfaction,

thefactorsweremoderatelyrelatedtoeach other(= 0.67).Aftercombiningtheitemsintoseparate

scales,thenewly created scaleswereregressed on overall satisfactionwithIVC.As shown by themodel,

theJobEnvironmentfactor( = .71)wasmuchmorecloselyrelatedtooverallsatisfactionthan

satisfactionwithpersonalaspectsofemployment likecareeropportunitiesandpay(= .08).Inother

words,overallsatisfactionis drivenbyfeelingsofinclusiveness,appreciation,and respect.

3Using maximumlikelihoodextractionwithanobliquerotationof thedata,thefactoranalysisextractedtwofactorsaccounting for51.6%of

thevarianceinthedata.Pairwisedeletionofmissingdatawasemployed.

.67*

Overall Satisfaction

.71* .08

Personal

Opportunities for

personal growth

Opportunities for

advancement

Current position

Benefits

Salary

.56

.66

.68

.73

.46

Rating of campus

environment

Strong sense of

community

Feel work is appreciated

Opportunities to make

suggestions

Professional

development

encouraged

Participate in shared

governance

Relationship with

Supervisor

Treatedwith respect &

dignity

Receive the necessary

information

Improvement of campus

environment

Relationship with co-

workers

Job Environment

.50

.90

.90

.81

.78

.68

.61

.56

.56

.56

.54


29/117


28INSTRUCTION

INSTRUCTION

Inthissection,full-timefacultymemberswere askeda varietyofquestionsaboutinstructional

proceduresandothercurriculum matters. Large majoritiesagreedthatthefacultydeterminesstudent

competency (91%), instructorsarefair andobjective(89%),andstudentsareabletoenroll in lowerlevel

courses(86%).Seventy-fivepercentoffull-time facultyrespondentsfeltthatadvancedcoursesare

offeredfrequentlyandanother71percentagreedthatfacultymembersare encouragedtodevelop new

coursesandprograms.About two-thirdsofthefull-timefacultyrespondents(66%)believedthatthey

are supportedwhendeveloping newcoursesandprograms. Onlya slightmajorityof respondents(52%)

agreedthatIVChasa goodprocedurefordevelopingnewcoursesandprograms.

Figure 11: Faculty Perception of Instructional Procedures (n = 80)

18%

21%

35%

30%

46%

50%

65%

34%

45%

36%

45%

40%

39%

26%

26%

16%

20%

14%

6%

5%

5%

21%

15%

6%

8%

3%

1%

3%

3%

4%

5%

6%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Good proceduretodevelop courses

Necessarysupportresources fornewcourses

Facultyare encouraged todevelop newcourses

Advanced coursesare offered frequentlyenough

Studentscantake lowerlevelcoursesthat theyneed

Instructorsare fairand objective

Facultydeterminesstudentcompetency

Stronglyagre e Somewhatagre e Some whatdisagree Stron glydisagree DK

NOTE: Only full-time faculty members were asked this series of questions.


30/117


29INSTRUCTION

AsshownbyTable 15andTable 16,newer full-timefacultysurvey respondents(


31/117


30CAMPUSFACILITIES

CAMPUS FACILITIES

Thissectionofthereportsummarizesemployeesopinionsaboutvariouscampusfacilities,including

classrooms,labs,instructionalequipment,campusbuildingsandlighting,campusgrounds,andparking.

Included in thesectionareperceptions ofcampus safety.

Classrooms, Labs, and Instructional Equipment

Askedofallfacultymembers,thisseriesofquestionsfocusedoninstructionfacilitiesandequipment.

Over 80 percentof facultymembersthatansweredthesurvey agreedthatIVCprovidescurrent

instructionalequipmentforlectures(84%)andclassroom lightingisgood(82%).Significantlyfewer(but

still overa majority of)respondentsindicatedthatclassroomsarecleanandwell-maintained(55%).

Whileonly52percentoffacultywhorespondedtothe surveyindicatedthatcampuslabequipmentis

up-to-date,a sizable percentage (31%)indicatedthattheydidnothave anopinionaboutthisquestion,

ostensiblybecause these facultymembersdonotteachcourseswithlabs.Once Dontknowopinions

arefiltered out,75percentofrespondentsbelievedthatthelab equipmentis up-to-date.

Figure 12: Faculty Perception of Instructional Infrastructure (n = 98)

NOTE: All IVC faculty members (full-time and adjunct) were asked this series of questions.

17%

13%

40%

45%

35%

42%

42%

39%

14%

27%

11%

9%

3%

17%

4%

5%

31%

1%

3%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Instructionalequipmentforlabsisup-to-date

Classrooms arecleanandwell-maintained

Classroomlightingis good

Instructionalequipmentforlecturesisup-to-date

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhatdisagree Strongly disagree DK


32/117


31CAMPUSFACILITIES

Campus Facilities

Questionsaboutgeneralcampusfacilitieswereoffered toall employees.Mostcampusemployeesinthe

survey(84%)agreedthatcampusgroundsare attractive andwell-maintainedandabout two-thirdsof

respondentsagreedthatcampusbuildingsprovidea healthyworking environment.Sixinten(61%)

believedthatthe lightingatnightisgood,although15percentdidnotexpresstheiropinionaboutcampuslighting (again,presumingthatthese employeeswork solelyduring theday-timehours). When

Dontknowopinionsare filteredout,71percentofemployeerespondentsfeltthatcampuslighting at

nightisgood.Slightmajoritiesagreedthatthe restroomsare cleanandwell-maintained(56%)andthat

campusbuildingsare comfortable (53%).

Figure 13: Perception of Campus Facilities (n = 196)

19%

16%

21%

23%

45%

34%

40%

40%

44%

39%

29%

24%

16%

20%

11%

17%

18%

8%

12%

5%

2%

2%

15%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Heating and cooling in campusbuildingsare

comfortable

Restrooms arecleanandwell-maintained

Campuslighting atnightisgood

Campusbuildingsprovideahealthy working

environment

Campusgroundsarewell-maintained

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhatdisagree Strongly disagree DK/NA


33/117


32CAMPUSFACILITIES

Campus Parking

Most surveyrespondentsindicatedthattheyweresatisfiedwithcampusparking facilitiesand

maintenance.Over85percentofemployeesin thesurveyweresatisfied with themaintenanceofthe

parkinglots(87%),the safetyoftheparking lots(85%),andthe availabilityofparkingoncampus(85%).

Because 14percentofrespondentsansweredDontknowregarding thelighting oftheparking lotsatnight,only74percentindicatedthattheywere satisfiedwithparking lotlighting(withoutthe Dont

knowresponses,totalsatisfaction=86%).

Figure 14: Perception of Campus Parking (n = 197)

29%

49%

52%

49%

45%

36%

34%

38%

8%

10%

8%

9%

4%

4%

3%

3%

14%

4%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Lighting oftheparking lotsatnight

Availability ofparking on campus

Safetyof theparkinglots

Maintenanceof theparkinglots

Verysatisfied Somewhatsatisfied Somewhatdissatisfied Verydissatisfied DK/NA


34/117


33CAMPUSFACILITIES

Campus Safety

Whenaskedhowsafe andsecureemployeesfeltoncampus,about66percentofrespondentsindicated

thattheywereVery safeand secureand another26percentreportedthatthey wereSomewhatsafe

andsecure.Onlyfivepercentindicated thattheywereeitherNotvery safeand secure(4%)orNot

atallsafe andsecure(1%). Threepercentdidnotknoworrefusedtogive theiropinionaboutcampussafety.

Figure 15: Perception of Campus Safety (n = 205)

Verysafeand

secure

65.9%

Somewhatsafeandsecure

25.5%

Notverysafe

andsecure

4.3%

Notat allsafe

andsecure

1.0%DK/NA

3.4%


35/117


34TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE

TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE

Inthissectionofthe survey,employeeswere askedaseriesofquestionsabouttechnologyequipment

andtrainingprovidedbythe college informationtechnology(IT)staff.ResultspresentedinFigure 16

provide strong evidencethatthe campuscommunityfeelssupportedbythe college IT staff.Strong

majorities(over80%)indicatedthatthetechnologyemployedatIVCis currentand reliable.For

example,88percentofemployeeseitherStronglyorSomewhatagreedthatInternetaccess at IVC

is fastandreliable,whereas86percentand83percentagreedthatTechnologyequipmentisreliable

andComputer hardwareandsoftwareareup-to-date,respectively. Over86percentagreedthat

Technologystaffis knowledgeable.ThreeoutoffouremployeeseitherStronglyorSomewhat

agreedthatIVCmaintains,upgrades,orreplacesitstechnologyinfrastructureandequipmenttomeet

instructionalneeds(76%), IVC maintains,upgrades,orreplaces its technologyinfrastructure and

equipmenttomeetstaffneeds(76%),IVCprovideshighqualitytechnologytraining(74%), and

Technologytrainingaddressesthe differing needsoffacultyandstaff(73%).

Figure 16: Technology Infrastructure (n = 195)

45%

42%

47%

45%

48%

48%

63%

68%

32%

37%

34%

36%

41%

44%

29%

26%

11%

11%

9%

5%

5%

5%

5%

4%

5%

3%

5%

3%

3%

2%

7%

8%

6%

10%

4%

3%

2%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Technology training addressesneeds

of faculty/staff

IVCprovideshigh quality technology

training

IVC maintainsitstechnologyto meet

staff needs

IVC maintainsitstechnologyto meet

instructionalneeds

Computerhardwareandsoftwareare

up-to-date

Technology equipmentisreliable

Technology staffisknowledgeable

Internet accessisfast andreliable



36/117


35LEADERSHIP

LEADERSHIP

The followingquestionswere designedtoget employeesopinionsonthe amountofcommunication

provided by thecollegepresidentandthedistrictchancelloraswell astheeffectivenessofthecollege

anddistrictadministration.Ingeneral,perceptionsofadministrativeleadershipweremorepositivefor

collegeadministratorsthanfordistrictadministrators. Forexample,61percentofemployeesagreed

thatThepresidentcommunicatesregularlywithall constituencies(28.2% Stronglyagree;33.1%

Somewhatagree)and56percentagreedthattheIVCadministrationprovideseffectiveleadership

(23.8% Stronglyagree;32.6%Somewhatagree).Lessthana majority of surveyedemployees(47%)

agreedthatThe chancellorcommunicatesregularlywithall constituencies(13.3%Stronglyagree;

33.7%Somewhatagree)anda similarpercentage(46%)agreedthatthedistrictprovideseffective

leadership(14.4% Stronglyagree;31.5% Somewhatagree).

Figure 17: Perception of Executive Leadership (n = 181)

14%

13%

24%

28%

31%

34%

33%

33%

27%

22%

23%

20%

22%

20%

18%

12%

5%

11%

2%

7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

TheDistrictprovides effectiveleadership

Thechancellorcommunicatesregularly

withallconstituencies

IVC administrationprovideseffective

leadership

Thepresidentcommunicatesregularly

withallconstituencies



37/117


36LEADERSHIP

Table 17showsthatemployeesthathaveworkedatIVCfrom11 to20 yearsweretheleastlikely to

agree thatthe presidentcommunicatesregularlywithallconstituencies.Table 18showsthatthere isa

strong relationshipbetweensense ofcommunityandperceptionsofthe presidentsfrequencyof

communication. About82percentofemployeeswhobelieve thatIVChasa strong sense ofcommunity

agreedthatthe presidentcommunicatesregularlywithallconstituencies;conversely,only37percentof

employeeswhodisagree thatIVChasa strong sense ofcommunityexpressedthe sameopinion.

Similarly,Table19showsthatthereisstrongrelationship betweenperceptionsofthepresidents

communicationwithcampusconstituentgroupsandthe levelofimprovementinthe campus

environmentforemployees. Eighty-sixpercentofemployeeswhofeel thatthecampusenvironmentfor

employeeswasGettingbetteragreedthatthepresidentregularlycommunicated withall

constituencies,whereasonly34percentofemployeeswhobelieve thatthe campusenvironmentwas

Gettingworsefeltthesameway aboutthecollegepresident.

Table 17: Perception of President's Communication by Length of Employment

Table 18: Perception of President's Communication by Sense of Community

< 3 years(n = 23)

3 to 5 years(n = 27)

6 to 10 years(n = 40)

11 to 20 years(n = 49)

21+ years(n = 33)

Total(n = 172)

Strongly agree 59.1% 28.6% 34.2% 22.4% 19.4% 30.4%

Somewhat agree 40.9% 39.3% 28.9% 28.6% 48.4% 35.7%

Somewhat disagree 0.0% 25.0% 23.7% 32.7% 12.9% 21.4%

Strongly disagree 0.0% 7.1% 13.2% 16.3% 19.4% 12.5%

Strong Sense

of Community

(n = 109)

Weak Sense

of Community

(n = 63)

Total

(n = 172)

Strongly agree 40.4% 11.9% 30.4%

Somewhat agree 41.3% 25.4% 35.7%

Somewhat disagree 15.6% 32.2% 21.4%

Strongly disagree 2.8% 30.5% 12.5%


38/117


39/117


38LEADERSHIP

Table 21: Perception of IVC Administrative Leadership by Sense of Community

Table 22: Perception of IVC Administrative Leadership by Improvement of Campus Environment for Employees

Strong Sense

of Community

(n = 113)

Weak Sense

of Community

(n = 64)

Total

(n = 177)

Strongly agree 3 5.4% 4.7% 24.3%

Somewhat agree 40.7% 20.3% 33.3%

Somewhat disagree 21.2% 28.1% 23.7%

Strongly disagree 2.7% 46.9% 18.6%

Getting better

(n = 70)

Staying the Same

(n = 60)

Getting worse

(n = 42)

Total

(n = 172)

Strongly agree 47.1% 11.7% 2.4% 23.8%

Somewhat agree 35.7% 41.7% 19.0% 33.7%

Somewhat disagree 11.4% 25.0% 40.5% 23.3%

Strongly disagree 5.7% 21.7% 38.1% 19.2%


40/117


39HUMAN RESOURCES

HUMAN RESOURCES

Thissection examinesemployeeopinionsregardinghuman resourcepoliciesaswell ascollegesupport

fordiversityatIVC.In thefigure below, nearlythree-fourthsof respondents(72.2%)eitherstrongly

(34.5%)orsomewhat(37.6%)agreedwiththestatementthatPersonnelpoliciesandproceduresare

easy toobtain andreview.Sixteen percentofrespondentsSomewhatdisagreedwith thisstatement

and anotherseven percentStronglydisagreedthatpersonnelpoliciesareeasily availableforreview.

Sevenoutoftenrespondents(69.1%)agreedthatCampuspublicationsclearlyandadequatelyreflect

actualpractices at theCollege(Stronglyagree29.4%;Somewhatagree39.7%), whereas22 percent

ofemployeerespondentsdisagreedwiththisstatement(Stronglydisagree16.5%;Somewhat

disagree5.7%). Approximatelynine percentofrespondentsindicatedthattheydidnotknowwhether

ornotcampuspublicationsaccuratelyreflectcollegepractices.Figure18alsoshowsthat59 percentof

survey respondentseitherstrongly (37.6%)or somewhat(21.6%)agreedthatPersonnelrecordsare

keptconfidential,whereas16percentdisagreedwiththisstatement(Stronglydisagree9.8%;

Somewhatdisagree5.7%).A sizablepercentageofemployees(25.3%)selectedDontknowwhenasked thisquestion.Similarpercentagesofemployeesbelievedthatjob performanceevaluationsare

conductedsystematicallyatregularintervals(Stronglyagree26.3%;Somewhatagree32.5%)and

encourage improvement(Stronglyagree25.8%; Somewhatagree31.4%).Abouta thirdof

respondents(36.1%and34.5%respectively)disagreedthatevaluationsareconductedregularly and

promptimprovement.

Figure 18: Human Resources (n = 194)

26%

26%

38%

29%

35%

31%

32%

22%

40%

38%

19%

22%

10%

16%

16%

15%

14%

6%

6%

7%

8%

5%

25%

9%

5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Jobperformanceevaluations

encourage improvement

Jobperformanceevaluationsare

conducted systematically

Personnel recordsare kept

confidential

Campuspublicationsclearly

reflect actualpractices

Personnelpolicies areeasyto

obtainandreview



41/117


42/117


43/117


42LEVELS OF COMMUNICATION

Figure 21: Level of Awareness about Division/Unit Events (n = 192)

EmployeeswerealsoaskedwhetherornottheyagreedthatStaffandfacultymembersarekept

informedaboutsupportservicesavailable forstudents.AsshowninFigure22,more thantwo-thirdsof

employeerespondentseitherStrongly(24.9%)orSomewhatagreedwiththisstatement.About19

percentofrespondentsSomewhatdisagreeandnine percentStronglydisagreethattheyare kept

informedaboutstudentservices. Three percentselectedDontknowfortheirresponse.

Figure 22: Staff/Faculty Informed about Student Services (n = 181)

Veryinformed

52.1%

Somewhat

informed

31.8%

Somewhat

uninformed

7.3%

Very

uninformed

8.9%

DK/NA

0.0%

Stronglyagree

24.9%

Somewhat

agree

43.6%

Somewhat

disagree

18.8%

Stronglydisagree

9.4%

DK/NA3.3%


44/117


43LEVELS OF COMMUNICATION

Next,employeeswere askedtorate theimportanceofvariousmethodsofcommunicationasa source

ofinformationaboutcampusissues. Overwhelmingly,respondentsratedE-Mailas themost

importantmethodofcommunicationaboutcampusissues(95%VeryorExtremelyimportant)

followedby, theIVCWebsite(79%Veryor Extremelyimportant), MySite(73% Veryor

Extremelyimportant),Meetingsinyourdivision/unit(65%Veryor Extremelyimportant), Direct

writtencorrespondence(56%VeryorExtremelyimportant),Collegecommitteemeetings(55%

Veryor Extremelyimportant), andIVCintranetsites(54% Veryor Extremelyimportant).

Employeerespondentswere leastlikelytofindNewslettersandflyersasanimportantmethodof

communicationaboutcampusissues(35%VeryorExtremelyimportant).

Figure 23: Preferred Method of Communication (n = 192)

12%

24%

25%

29%

38%

47%

53%

79%

23%

30%

30%

27%

27%

26%

27%

17%

42%

35%

34%

29%

28%

19%

16%

4%

22%

11%

11%

15%

8%

8%

5%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

NewslettersandFlyers

IVC Intranet Sites

CollegeCommitteeMeetings

DirectWrittenCorrespondence

Meetings in your Division/Unit

MySite

IVC Website

E-Mail

Extremelyimportant Very important Somewhat important Not at allimportant DK/NA


45/117


44COLLEGE DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

COLLEGE DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

In2005, thecollegeinitiated manynewdecision-making processesinsupportofimplementing itsnew

strategicplan.Furthermore,manyexisting processeshave beenrevised. In ordertoassessemployees

awareness ofthesechanges,thesurveyaskedallemployeestoratehowfamiliartheywerewiththe

neworrevised collegedecision-makingprocesses. Responsestothese questionswere codedsuchthat,

Very familiar= +3,Somewhatfamiliar= +2,A littlefamiliar=+-1,andNotat allfamiliar= 0.The

responseswerethen aggregated toforma mean familiarity scoreforeach ofthecollegeprocesstested

inthe survey.AsshowninFigure24,employeerespondentsweremostfamiliarwiththeCollege

missionstatementandcollege goals(2.00),followedbyStrategicplanning(1.67),ThePlanningand

Decision-MakingManual(1.55),Collegebudgetdevelopmentprocess(1.42),andClassifiedhiring

priority listdevelopmentprocess(1.33).Seven outoften respondents(71.9%)wereeither Very

(36.3%)orSomewhatfamiliar(35.7%)withthecollegemission statementand goals,whereas

significantlylessemployeeswerefamiliarwith thedevelopmentoftheclassified hiringpriority list

(Veryfamiliar16.4%;Somewhatfamiliar28.7%).

Figure 24: Familiarity with College Decision-Making Processes (n = 171)

1.33

1.42

1.55

1.67

2.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

ClassifiedHiringPriorityListDevelopment

Process

College BudgetDevelopmentProcess

ThePlanning and Decision-MakingManualfor

IrvineValleyCollege

Strategic Planning

CollegeMissionStatement andGoals

Notatall

familiar

Alittle

familiar

Somewhat

familiar

Very

familiar


46/117



Several characteristicsoftherespondentsconditioned familiaritywiththeneworrevised college

decision-making processes.Withtheexception oftheclassifiedhiringprioritylistdevelopmentprocess,

Figure25showsthatfaculty membersweremorelikelytobefamiliarwith collegedecision-making

processesthanclassifiedstaffmembers.Forexample,a significantlyhigherpercentageoffaculty

memberswereatleastSomewhatfamiliarwiththecollegemission statementand goals(83.3%vs.

57.5%),strategicplanning(64.1%vs. 50.1%),the planninganddecision-making manual(62.8%vs.

42.6%), andthecollege budgetdevelopmentprocess(52.6%vs. 41.3%).

Figure 25: Familiarity with College Decision-Making Processes by Bargaining Unit

1.14

1.53

1.74

1.82

2.26

1.38

1.25

1.25

1.41

1.65

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00


Process


ThePlanning and Decision-Making Manual

forIrvineValleyCollege

Strategic Planning


Classified(n=80)

Faculty (n =78)

Notatall

familiar

Alittle

familiar

Somewhat

familiar

Very

familiar


47/117



EmployeeswhohavebeenworkingatIVCforeleven yearsormoreweremorelikely tobeawareofthe

collegedecision-makingprocessesthatemployeeswhohave workedforIVCfortenyearsorless. The

difference betweenthe twogroupswasmostpronouncedwhencomparing familiaritywiththecollege

budgetdevelopmentprocess,the planning anddecision-makingmanual,andstrategicplanning.

Figure 26: Familiarity with College Decision-Making Processes by Length of Employment

1.37

1.62

1.72

1.85

2.12

1.30

1.26

1.41

1.52

1.90

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00


Process


ThePlanning and Decision-Making ManualforIrvineValleyCollege

Strategic Planning



48/117



Asillustrated inFigure27,familiaritywith collegedecision-makingprocessesis stronglyrelated tothe

level ofawarenessthatemployeeshave aboutwhatishappening atIVC.

Figure 27: Familiarity with College Decision-Making Processes by Level of Awareness about Campus Events

0.63

0.92

0.71

0.83

1.33

1.34

1.40

1.37

1.68

1.98

1.67

1.71

2.25

2.06

2.38

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00


Process


ThePlanning and Decision-Making ManualforIrvineValleyCollege

Strategic Planning


Very Informed (n =52)

Somewhatinformed (n =94)

Uninformed (n =24)

Notatall

familiar

Alittle

familiar

Somewhat

familiar

Very

familiar


49/117



Lastly,respondentswitha strong senseofcommunityaboutIVCwere morelikelytobefamiliarwiththe

neworrevised collegedecision-makingprocesses.Inotherwords,employeeswhofeelconnectedtoIVC

weremorelikelytobe awareofimportantcollegeprocesses.

Figure 28: Familiarity with College Decision-Making Processes by Sense of Community

1.13

1.21

1.30

1.48

1.72

1.41

1.54

1.62

1.74

2.14

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00


Process


ThePlanning and Decision-Making

ManualforIrvineValleyCollege

Strategic Planning


Strong (n =98)

Weak(n =61)

Notatallfamiliar

Alittlefamiliar

Somewhatfamiliar

Veryfamiliar


50/117



Inadditiontocollege-widedecision-making processes,severalinstructionalproceduresandpolicies

werecreatedorrevised.Therefore,a seriesofquestionsweregiven tofull-timefacultymembersaswell

ascollegeadministratorstoratetheirfamiliaritywith theseneworrevised instructional processes.

Respondentsin thesurveyweremostfamiliarwith Programreview(2.34)andtheFull-timefaculty

hiringprioritylistdevelopmentprocess(2.13),followed by theInstitutional EffectivenessAnnual

Report(1.81),Newprogram approvalpolicyandprocedures(academicprogramsandcareer

technologyeducation)(1.75),Program discontinuance(1.60),andProgram realignment(1.51).To

putthesemeanscoresin perspective,56percentofsurveyrespondentsreported thattheywereVery

familiarwithprogramreviewandanother28percentindicatedthatthey wereSomewhatfamiliar.

Conversely,22 percentand29 percentof survey respondentswereVeryfamiliarandSomewhat

familiarrespectivelywith programrealignment.

Figure 29: Familiarity with College Decision-Making Processes Instruction (n = 91)

1.51

1.60

1.75

1.81

2.13

2.34

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

ProgramRealignment

ProgramDiscontinuance

NewProgramApprovalPolicy and Procedures

InstitutionalEffectivenessReport

Full-TimeFacultyHiringPriorityList

DevelopmentProcess

ProgramReview

Notatall

familiar

Alittle

familiar

Somewhat

familiar

Very

familiar


51/117



Withtheexception oftheInstitutional EffectivenessAnnual

2009 employee satisfaction survey.pdf

Documents