1. “Survey Says…”: A Summary of WSU Employee Reactions to the 2008-2010 Budget Cuts Tahira M. Probst, Ph.D. Washington State University Vancouver This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. 0810927. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF. Further, nothing contained within this presentation should be interpreted as any attempt to influence or alter the policies or procedures of Washington State University or any other public entity or state agency.

2. Topics to Discuss Background –Context –Origins of the Survey Summary of Faculty and Staff/AP Findings –Exposure to Budget Cuts & Perceived Impact –Review of Attitudinal, Behavioral, & Health- related Outcomes –Presentation of New Analyses Implications for WSU Q & A

3. Economic Backdrop Great Recession 2007-2009

4. Effects on WSU 2009-2011* 16 degrees or program options phased out 8 degrees consolidated or reduced 7 academic units consolidated, reduced or phased out 3 academic program areas eliminated 9 administrative units consolidated to 6 517 jobs (FTEs) eliminated 30% loss of WSU’s state-allocated operating budget 2011-2013: Facing an additional $40M net reduction * Data from: http://budget.wsu.edu

5. Origins of the Survey Conducting research on the effects of economic stress since the mid-1990s. –Job insecurity; organizational downsizing; restructuring. Call for Social Science Small Grant proposals from the ADVANCE program –Goal of ADVANCE is to facilitate research that will enable WSU to be a “research institution that promotes career-long excellence for faculty” Expanded to include staff/AP survey

6. Research Questions How have the budget cuts affected faculty job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance outcomes (including teaching, scholarly productivity, and service)? –Are there any departmental-level variables that would account for differences in how faculty reacted? What have been the attitudinal, behavioral, and health-related effects on classified staff and AP employees?

7. Methodology & Samples All faculty (including chairs, deans, and academic directors), staff, and AP employees invited to participate in the study. –61 chairs/deans/directors (67% response rate) –647 tenure & non-tenure track faculty (~30%) –1071 AP/staff (~30%) Comparison data (N = 701) from an earlier 2001 survey of WSU employees

8. Chair’s Survey Findings Overwhelming concern that the budget cuts have negatively affected the morale of faculty.

9. Chair’s Findings (cont.) 85% believe that faculty may be seeking positions at other universities; 58% of chairs reported at least one voluntary faculty departure (range 0-6)

10. Chair’s Findings (cont.) 83% concerned that faculty do not have adequate resources needed to conduct their research.

11. Chair’s Findings (cont.) 63% indicated the budget situation makes it more difficult to attract highly qualified candidates to WSU.

12. Chair’s Findings (cont.) Budget cuts have adversely affected the ability of faculty to be tenured and/or promoted (53%)

13. Faculty Survey Findings Extremely high levels of turnover intentions (95% percentile) –In 2001, WSU faculty were at the 65%ile Compared to 2001: –Faculty job security and pay satisfaction have significantly declined –On the other hand, satisfaction with one’s coworkers and promotion opportunities both rose significantly. –Further, satisfaction with one’s department chair remained high.

14. Exposure to the Budget Cuts Compared to before the recession (i.e., prior to 2008, …” Have you been asked to raise your course caps? Have you had fewer opportunities to teach during the summer? Do you have fewer resources to teach effectively? Have you lost opportunities to teach DDP/online courses? Do you have fewer resources to conduct your research? Do you have less opportunity to network professionally? Perceived Impact of Budget Cuts Budget cuts have negatively affected my ability to teach. The budgetary climate at WSU has negatively affected my scholarly productivity. Budget cuts are harmful to my department.

15. Exposure to Budget Cuts

16. Extent of Perceived Impact

17. Annual Review Ratings (N = 355) Both measures suggest that greater exposure to budget cuts was related to lower productivity.

18. Other Correlates Faculty who experienced more budget cut impacts or reported being more affected by the cuts also reported… –More work-family conflict –Greater erosion in the relationship between them and WSU –Less loyalty to WSU and more turnover intentions –Less work engagement and more burnout –Less job security –Less satisfaction with pay and promotion opportunities (but no relationship with coworker or work satisfaction)

19. Additional Findings Greater impact was also related to: –Engaging in more service-related behaviors But, less motivation to engage in service at WSU in the future and more motivation to engage in service to one’s professional organizations –Greater emphasis on obtaining grant funding

20. Departmental Differences Since we released our feedback report, we have also conducted follow-up analyses to see whether any departmental-level variables might explain differences in faculty outcomes. –Procedural Justice Climate The extent to which faculty and their departments felt they had a voice in decision making processes –Departmental Exposure to Budget Cuts The degree of impact that the department chair indicated in the chair’s survey

21. Procedural Justice (“Voice”) Have you been able to express your views and feelings during the budget-cutting process? Have you had influence over the budget cuts allocation arrived at by those procedures? Have those procedures been applied consistently? Have those procedures been free of bias? Have those procedures been based on accurate information? Have you been able to appeal the budget cuts decisions arrived at by those procedures? Have those procedures upheld ethical and moral standards?

22. Procedural Justice Results These analyses examined individual- and departmental-level procedural justice perceptions regarding the budget cutting process as predictors of: –Trust in WSU administration –Motivation to engage in service-related behaviors at WSU, and –Turnover intentions among faculty

23. Main Effect Outcomes of “Voice” Faculty voice was related to: –more trust in WSU administration, –greater motivation to engage in service at WSU, –fewer intentions to seek employment elsewhere. Voice at the departmental level (i.e., aggregated based on all faculty respondents in a given department) was related to: –greater faculty trust in WSU administration, but not service or turnover intentions.

24. Cross-Level Interaction Effects Faculty who were in departments with high levels of perceived voice had less negative reactions to individual perceptions of a lack of voice.

25. Motivation to Engage in Service

26. Turnover Intentions

27. Implications Department chairs and administrators should create a climate where faculty are encouraged to participate in budget-cutting decision making processes. Even if individual faculty members don’t feel like they had the opportunity, being in a department that has collective positive voice perceptions attenuates the negative faculty reactions that would otherwise occur.

28. Departmental Context Faculty reacted more negatively to the budget cuts when they were in departments that were less affected by the budget cuts. –A bit counterintuitive… May be due to contrast or relative deprivation effects –“Why am I personally being affected by these budget cuts, when my departmental colleagues are not?”

29. STEM/non-STEM Comparisons One of the goals of the ADVANCE program is specifically to increase the percentage and success of women faculty in targeted science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Conducted analyses comparing outcomes between: –Women in STEM and non-STEM fields –Men and women in STEM fields

30. STEM vs. non-STEM Women Merit Pay Increases 33% of women in STEM fields reported that they had received a merit pay increase in the past 3 years, compared to 19% of women in non-STEM fields. –However, significantly more women in non- STEM fields (14.5%) than in STEM fields (2%) predicted that they would get a merit increase in the next 3 years

31. STEM vs. non-STEM Women Women in STEM fields reported being less personally affected by the budget cuts compared to women in non-STEM fields. Women in STEM fields had significantly lower turnover intentions than women in non-STEM fields. –This difference is only partially explained by the differences in the extent to which they had been affected by the budget cuts.

32. STEM vs. non-STEM Women Women in non-STEM fields reported engaging in significantly more service-and teaching-related OCBs and having higher motivation/rewards for engaging in service within WSU. Women in STEM fields, on the other hand, reported that obtaining grant funding was significantly more important, compared to women in non-STEM fields.

33. STEM Men (N= 145) & Women (N = 52) Salary and Merit Pay Increases STEM men reported significantly higher salaries (~10K) than STEM women. –This difference was no longer significant when rank was taken into account. 33% of STEM women reported receiving a merit pay increase in the past 3 years, compared to 19% of STEM men. 12% of STEM men expected to receive merit increase in the next 3 years compared to 2% of STEM women.

34. STEM Men vs. Women Compared to STEM men, STEM women report significantly higher levels of: –Work-family conflict –Burnout (exhaustion/cynicism) –Both of these effects remained significant even after accounting for faculty rank. Compared to STEM men, STEM women report significantly lower levels of: –Job security –Professional networking opportunities –Both of these effects became non-significant when faculty rank was accounted for.

35. AP/Staff Survey Findings 95% of respondents said their unit’s budget had been cut –23% said these cuts were severe AP and staff reported low levels of perceived control over and a lack of voice in the budget- cutting process High degree of erosion in their relationship with WSU; Low levels of trust in the administration On the other hand, high levels of satisfaction with coworkers, supervisors, and work tasks (within top 25%)

36. AP/Staff Changes Since 2001 Staff –Job security and satisfaction with promotion opportunities have significantly declined –Significantly fewer alternative job opportunities available. –Significant increases in physical health ailments and job stress levels. AP –Significantly lower job security; fewer alternative job opportunities –Significantly higher turnover intentions, physical health ailments, and job stress levels

37. Cuts vs. Changes Extent of cuts in unit –freeze on hiring, travel, pay and benefit increases, staff layoffs, loss of vacant/open staff positions, reduction in goods & services budget, reduction/consolidation/ reorganization of services Number of resulting job changes for employee –changed supervisors, new work tasks/added work responsibilities, pay cut, job demotion, lower job status, new coworkers, new policies, coworkers laid off, working longer hours than expected or contracted, increased need to take work home, access to fewer resources Interestingly, the overall number of cuts within an employee’s unit was not the best predictor. Rather, the number of resulting changes to the employee’s position appeared to be the more important factor.

38. Outcomes of Job Changes Employees who experienced more job changes: –report higher levels of work-family conflict than employees who experienced fewer changes. –are more satisfied with their promotion opportunities, but less satisfied with their job security. –perceive that they have fulfilled their commitments to WSU to a greater extent than WSU has fulfilled its commitments to them. –report higher levels of work engagement, but also greater intentions to seek employment elsewhere.

39. Why the mix of findings? Research is beginning to distinguish between so-called challenge vs. hindrance stressors. –Some stressors are nearly universally negative ones (hindrances), but others (while stressful) may sometimes be viewed as challenging in a positive way. –Ex: “working longer hours” and “taking work home” was related to more work engagement (enthusiasm/pride in one’s work) But, these were also related to significantly greater WFC and more physical health ailments

40. Possible Strategies While there are no magic bullets to dealing with the very real stressors that employees face, the data do suggest a few possible strategies. Access to job skills training –AP/Staff employees who felt that WSU gave them many opportunities for increasing their job skills reacted less negatively to the increased number of job changes facing them.

41. Turnover Intentions

42. Psychological Contract Beliefs Employee beliefs about the extent to which WSU has held up its end of the employer- employee relationship

43. Dealing with Job Insecurity In addition to providing strategies for helping employees cope with job changes, it is also useful to consider ways to deal with resulting job insecurity. –Here again, increasing procedural justice (i.e., employee voice) appears to alleviate many of the negative outcomes of job insecurity

44. Supervisor Satisfaction

45. Job Stress

46. Burnout

47. Psychological Distress

48. For More Information Contact: Tahira Probst at probst@vancouver.wsu.edu to: probst@vancouver.wsu.edu –Ask follow-up questions –Suggest additional analyses –Request copies of conference/journal submissions or today’s presentations Download the Feedback Report from http://research.vancouver.wsu.edu/ohs- lab/economic-stress-and-job-insecurity- publications http://research.vancouver.wsu.edu/ohs- lab/economic-stress-and-job-insecurity- publications

49. Questions?