1. 1 Faculty Climate Survey Highlights Institutional Research & Faculty Development and Diversity March 2008

2. 2 Faculty Climate Survey – Results  1,863 tenured, tenure-track, and non-ladder faculty from all of Harvard’s Schools were invited to participate and 1,400 faculty responded (75%)  On average, the faculty are slightly more than “somewhat satisfied” with being faculty members at Harvard (4.16 on a 5-point scale, 5=“very satisfied”)  Women are significantly less satisfied than men (3.90 vs. 4.27)  Tenure-track faculty are significantly less satisfied than tenured faculty (3.93 vs. 4.31)

3. 3 Response Rates and Distribution of Respondents and Faculty All Schools Number of Respondents Response Rate % of Respondents † % of Population † Rank †† Tenured Faculty69777%50%49% Tenure-Track Faculty35777%26%25% Non-Ladder Faculty34570%25%26% Gender Women41478%30%29% Men98674%70%71% Ethnicity American Indian/ Alaskan Native Faculty 3100%<1% Asian Faculty12369%9%10% Black Faculty4173%3% Hispanic Faculty3274%2% Unknown Ethnicity467%<1% White Faculty1,19776%86%85% Total1,40075%100% † Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. †† There is one respondent with an unknown rank.

4. 4 The Survey Addresses Seven Topics  Satisfaction (e.g., satisfaction with the University, School, staff and facilities)  Atmosphere (e.g., fit with department, respect from colleagues and students, camaraderie and collegiality)  Workload (e.g., expectations and sources of stress)  Mentoring (e.g., effectiveness of mentoring)  Tenure (e.g., clarity of the tenure criteria and prospects )  Hiring and Retention (e.g., likelihood of leaving and reasons for leaving)  Life Outside Harvard (e.g., work-life balance)

5. 5 Satisfaction: Overall with Harvard Satisfaction with Being a Faculty Member at Harvard University (University Average = 4.16) 1=very dissatisfied 2=somewhat dissatisfied 3=neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4=somewhat satisfied 5=very satisfied

6. 6 Satisfaction: Overall for Women and Men Satisfaction with Being a Faculty Member at Harvard University 1=very dissatisfied 2=somewhat dissatisfied 3=neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4=somewhat satisfied 5=very satisfied WMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWM 4.6 3.8 4.2 3.9 4.0 3.6 3.5 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.0 1 2 3 4 5 HLSHBSKSGGSDFASHMS/ HSDM GSESPHHDS Average Satisfaction

7. 7 Satisfaction: Overall by Rank 1=very dissatisfied 2=somewhat dissatisfied 3=neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4=somewhat satisfied 5=very satisfied Satisfaction with Being a Faculty Member at Harvard University * Tenure-track and non-ladder faculty are not reported for HLS because there are fewer than five respondents in each group. 4.1 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.5 4.2 3.9 4.1 4.7 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.2 3.5 4.8 4.4 3.9 4.0 4.2 3.9 4.0 1 2 3 4 5 HLSHBSKSGGSDFASHMS/ HSDMGSESPHHDS Average Satisfaction TenuredTenure-TrackNon-Ladder *

8. 8 Atmosphere: Fit with Department Agreement with: “My department* is a good fit for me.” 1=strongly disagree 2=somewhat disagree 3=neither agree nor disagree 4=somewhat agree 5=strongly agree * The unit of analysis is Department/Committee at FAS, Academic Unit at HBS, Department at GSD, HMS/HSDM, and SPH, Area at HDS and KSG, and School at HLS and GSE. 3.74 3.43 4.03 3.93 3.95 1 2 3 4 5 Tenured FacultyTenure-Track FacultyNon-Ladder Faculty Average Agreement WMWMWM

9. 9 Atmosphere: Gender and Rank Gaps (Ladder Faculty) IssuesGender GapRank Gap 1) Opportunities to collaborate with faculty in one’s primary department 2) Having a voice in the decision-making that affects the direction of one’s department 3) Collegiality and supportiveness of one’s department 4) Amount of personal interaction with colleagues 5) Opportunities to collaborate with Harvard faculty outside one’s primary department 6) Comfort in raising personal responsibilities when scheduling department obligations 7) Research/scholarship valued by colleagues 8) Feeling respected by the faculty in one’s department 9) Feeling respected by the students

10. 10 Workload: Reasonableness of Service Expectations (Ladder Faculty) Reasonableness of Service Expectations: Mean Difference From “About Right” (Ladder Faculty) Too High About Right Too Low 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.1 0 1 Tenured Faculty Tenure- Track Faculty Tenured Faculty Tenure- Track Faculty Tenured Faculty Tenure- Track Faculty Points from "About Right" Service to Department WWWWWMMMMMMW Service to SchoolService to University

11. 11 Work Expectations: Committee Load Average Number of Department, School and University Committees in Previous Academic Year (Ladder Faculty)

12. 12 Mentoring: Overall Effectiveness Department’s Effectiveness in Overall Mentoring of Junior Faculty* 1=very ineffective 2=somewhat ineffective 3=neither effective nor ineffective 4=somewhat effective 5=very effective * The unit of analysis is Department/Committee at FAS, Academic Unit at HBS, Department at GSD, HMS/HSDM, and SPH, Area at HDS and KSG, and School at HLS and GSE. 3.30 2.54 3.52 2.99 1 2 3 4 5 Tenured FacultyTenure-Track Faculty Average Effectiveness WWMM

13. 13 Mentoring: Types of Mentors Percentage of Tenure-Track Faculty with and without Mentors (Formal/Informal) Both Formal and Informal (N=97), 30% Informal Mentor Only (N=165), 50% Formal Mentor Only (N=25), 8% Neither Formal nor Informal (N=40), 12%

14. 14 Tenure: Clarity of Criteria (Ladder Faculty) Agreement with: “The criteria for tenure are clearly communicated.” 1=strongly disagree 2=somewhat disagree 3=neither agree nor disagree 4=somewhat agree 5=strongly agree

15. 15 Hiring and Retention: Likelihood of Leaving in the Next 3 Years Percentage of Faculty “Somewhat” or “Very Likely” to Leave Harvard in the Next 3 Years * Only non-ladder faculty who answered the question, “Given the opportunity, how likely would you be to renew your contract?” are included in the graph. This includes only 143 non-ladder faculty respondents who have renewable contracts. 18% 56% 7% 20% 40% 10% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Tenured FacultyTenure-Track FacultyNon-Ladder Faculty % of Respondents W M W MWM

16. 16 Hiring and Retention: Top 2 Reasons Faculty Consider Leaving % of Faculty Responding “to a Great Extent” Tenured Faculty: Increase time to do research26% Find a more supportive work environment24% Tenure-Track Faculty: Improve prospects for tenure44% Find a more supportive work environment36% Non-Ladder Faculty: Move to a tenure-track position41% Enhance career in other ways33%

17. 17 Life Outside Harvard: Dual-career Issues  89% of faculty have a spouse or domestic partner  31% of the ladder faculty have spouses that currently work in academia  49% of these faculty report their spouses work at Harvard while the other half are at other institutions  51% of faculty with spouses at other institutions are in commuting relationships. Of these faculty, - 78% had problems finding appropriate local employment for their spouses - Only 6% received help finding local employment for their spouses from their School

18. 18 Life Outside Harvard: Dependent Care Tenured Faculty Tenure-Track Faculty Non-Ladder Faculty WomenMenWomenMenWomenMen Number of Children (Mean)1.362.021.121.011.311.87 Have at Least 1 Child (%)72%88%60%56%74%77% Have at Least 1 Child Ages 0-4 (%)5%10%43%37%12%10% Caring/Managing Care for Others (%)23%18%8%6%28%15%

19. 19 Life Outside Harvard: Effect of Domestic Responsibilities on Career Agreement with: “My care giving and/or other domestic responsibilities have had a negative impact on my career.” 1=strongly disagree 2=somewhat disagree 3=neither agree nor disagree 4=somewhat agree 5=strongly agree 2.77 3.57 2.99 2.14 2.83 2.21 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Tenured FacultyTenure-Track FacultyNon-Ladder Faculty Average Agreement WWWMMM

20. 20 Policy Recommendations and Next Steps  Junior faculty:  Connect mentoring to incentives for senior faculty as mentoring is ill-defined, not measured and unevenly supported  Discuss the criteria for tenure and the possibility of tenure at the associate level  Understand better the dual-career issues for junior faculty  Delve more deeply into workload issues and factors driving perceptions of these issues  Continue to invest in family-friendly policies including: portable childcare scholarships, research enabling grants and tuition benefit reform  Examine and analyze qualitatively the minority faculty experience (small population limits usefulness of quantitative analysis)