1. 2011-2012 COACHE Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey Deans’ Council Meeting November 8, 2012 Betsy Brown and Nancy Whelchel

2. Why? To systematically collect information from our faculty to help NC State assess (and improve!) the quality of work life –Nature of work in research, teaching, and service –Resources to support faculty work –Tenure and promotion policies and practices –Leadership and governance –Department collegiality, quality, and engagement –Benefits, compensation, and work/life –Interdisciplinary work and collaboration –Mentoring –Appreciation and recognition

3. Who? Developed by Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (Harvard Graduate School of Education) Over 75 participating colleges/universities NC State COACHE peers –Clemson University –Kansas State University –Purdue University –SUNY-Albany –University of Tennessee Population: –Pre-tenure and tenured faculty –Non-tenure track faculty (part of pilot study; no COACHE peer comparisons) –Full-time –Hired prior to July 1, 2011 –Not in terminal year after being denied tenure What about staff? Planning for NCSU Staff Well-Being Survey, Spring 2014

4. When, How and What? October 2011 – January 2012 –NC State also participated in 2005-2006 and 2008-2009 surveys (pre-tenure faculty only) Online survey Results are/will be available for –Faculty overall (pre-tenure, tenured, non-tenure track) –Pre-tenure & tenured faculty Overall & by gender, race/ethnicity, tenure status, rank, college Compared to COACHE peers Compared to results from previous COACHE surveys (pre-tenure only) –Non-tenure track faculty Overall & by gender, race/ethnicity, college Compared to pre-tenure & tenured faculty Note: Current reports exclude Librarians (will be provided separately)

5. Response Rates: Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty ff Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty NC StateCOACHE Peers All COACHE Institutions PopResps Resp RatePopResps Resp RatePopResps Resp Rate Overall1,36280059%5,1132,63151%27,66013,63449% Tenure Status Pre-Tenure24714559%1,17065356%7,7723,97351% Tenured1,11565559%3,9431,97850%19,8889,66149% Rank Associate42624758%1,69085651%9,7114,68948% Full70241659%2,3001,13849%10,6185,11748% Gender Male1,01457156%3,5881,72948%17,7108,15146% Female34822966%1,52590259%9,9505,48355% Race/Ethnicity White1,09666961%4,0412,15953%21,33210,89751% Faculty of Color26413049%1,07147144%6,2692,72543%

6. Response Rates: Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty cont. ff College/Division COACHE Pop Survey Resps Resp Rate Agriculture and Life Sciences36022362% Design351954% Education705071% Engineering24011648% Natural Resources633352% Humanities and Social Sciences22113461% Physical and Mathematical Sciences1699355% Textiles393077% Veterinary Medicine936065% Management643859% Division of Academic and Student Affairs5480% Total1,35980059%

7. Response Rates: Non-Tenure Track Faculty ff NC State Non-Tenure Track FacultyPopResp Resp Rate Overall43219746% Gender Male2319444% Female21910347% Race/Ethnicty White37017547% Faculty of Color532242% College/Division Agriculture and Life Sciences683247% Design4250% Education21943% Engineering441432% Natural Resources221046% Humanities and Social Sciences1316953% Physical and Mathematical Sciences442148% Textiles5.. Veterinary Medicine341441% Management281450% Division of Academic and Student Affairs311239%

8. Presentation of Results Focus on –Global satisfaction –NC State pre-tenure & tenured faculty compared to COACHE peers –NC State pre-tenure & tenured faculty Overall Sub-group comparisons –Gender –Race/ethnicity –Tenure status –Rank –NC State NTT faculty Overall Compared to pre-tenure & tenured faculty Gender comparisons Note: No race/ethnicity comparisons due to no notable differences in responses –Note: Not reporting on comparisons to results from previous COACHE surveys (limited trend data due to changes in population and questions)

9. Presentation of Results cont. Methods –COACHE items typically ask for ‘agreement’ or ‘satisfaction’ with a particular statement or area of work –COACHE uses a 5-point response scale –Higher numbers represent more positive or favorable opinions –Reporting on average ratings –“Notable difference” between groups exist when the difference in averages rating is +/- 0.25. –Within reports for a sub-group, “higher” = 4.0 and above, “lower” = 2.75 or below

10. Global Satisfaction: NC State Faculty Overall Overall, faculty are satisfied working at NC State –74% are “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with their department as a place to work –67% would choose to work at NC State again if starting over –65% are “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with NC State as a place to work –51% would “strongly recommend” their department as a place to work to someone of their same rank –60% of pre-tenure & 70% of NTTs plan to stay at NC State for “ten years or more” Most common reasons contributing to thinking about leaving? –To retire (23%) –To improve salary/benefits (22%)

11. Global Satisfaction: NC State Faculty Overall Out of a list of 30 possible aspects of work… Most commonly cited “best aspects” about working at NC State? –Geographic location (40% NTT, 32% pre-tenure, 42% tenured) –Quality of colleagues (28%, 34%, 32% respectively) –Academic freedom (18%, 14%, 19%) –Support of colleagues (16%, 15%,13%) –My sense of fit here (13%, 21%, 15%) Most commonly cited “worst aspects” about working at NC State? –Compensation (49% NTT, 40% pre-tenure, and 40% tenured) –Lack of support for research/creative work (8%, 12%,18% respectively) –Quality of graduate students (1%, 14%, 10%) –Quality of facilities (9%, 10%, 12%)

12. NC State / COACHE Peer Comparisons (Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty Combined) NC State faculty have ratings similar to our COACHE peers for almost all items Bragging rights… –NC State has notably more favorable ratings than peers for Classrooms (3.71 NC State vs 3.23 Peers) Library resources (4.17 vs 3.76) Department culture encourages promotion (3.97 vs 3.68) Mentoring of associate faculty (2.69 vs 2.42) Offices (3.95 vs 3.69)

13. NC State / COACHE Peer Comparisons (Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty) Areas of relative weakness –NC State has notably less favorable ratings than peers for Health benefits for family (2.25 NC State vs 3.46 Peers) Health benefits for employee (2.78 vs 3.58) Tuition waivers, remission or exchange (2.16 vs 2.70) Retirement benefits (3.06 vs 3.44) Clerical/administrative support (2.98 vs 3.31)

14. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty: Most Favorably Rated Aspects of Work (Average = 4.0 or higher) Nature of Work –Discretion over courses taught (4.40) –Influence on focus of research (4.34) –Level of courses taught (4.10) Resources –Library resources (4.17) Mentoring –Importance of mentoring w/in dept (4.18) –Being a mentor is fulfilling (4.10) Tenure/Promotion –Tenure: Reasonableness of teaching expectations (4.15) –Tenure: Reasonableness of scholarship expectations (4.01) –Promotion: Clarity of process (4.05) –Promotion: Clarity of body of evidence (4.00) Department Life –Meeting times compatible w/ personal needs (4.13) –Intellectual vitality of pre-tenure faculty (4.09)

15. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty: Least Favorably Rated Aspects of Work (Average = 2.75 or lower) Compensation/Benefits –Tuition wavers/remission/exchange (2.16) –Housing benefits (2.20) –Health benefits for family (2.25) –Childcare (2.33) –Eldercare (2.59) Governance/Leadership –Priorities are acted on consistently (2.50) –Dean’s support in adapting to change (2.56) –Priorities are stated consistently (2.68) Interdisciplinary Work –Budgets encourage interdisciplinary work (2.52) –Facilities are conducive to interdisciplinary work (2.59) –Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in merit (2.61) –Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in promotion (2.66) Mentoring –Support for faculty to be good mentors (2.37) –Mentoring of associate faculty (2.69) Nature of Work –Support for research (2.72)

16. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty: Comparisons by Gender Women gave notably more favorable ratings than men in just a few areas –Personal and family policies Housing benefits Tuition waivers, remission, exchange –Mentoring Effectiveness of mentoring from outside the department / outside the university Importance of mentoring from outside the department / outside the university

17. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty: Comparisons by Gender Women gave notably less favorable ratings than men on most items, especially for*: Promotion and Tenure –Department culture encourages promotion (3.56 vs 4.11) –Clarity of promotion process (3.70 vs 4.17) –Clarity of time frame for promotion (3.31 vs 3.78) –Clarity of promotion criteria (3.64 vs 4.04) –Tenure decisions are performance based (3.44 vs 3.89) –Clarity of expectations as an advisor (3.07 vs 3.47) Nature of work –Ability to balance teaching/research/service (3.11 vs 3.53) –Equity of committee assignments (2.96 vs 3.37) Mentoring –Support for faculty to be good mentors (2.06 vs 2.47) –Mentoring of associate faculty (2.32 vs 2.82) Other –Right balance between professional/personal (3.02 vs 3.50) –College is valued by Provost (3.01 vs 3.49) –Department is valued by Provost (2.77 vs 3.21) –Colleagues committed to diversity/inclusion (3.68 vs 4.08) * Items with at least a 0.40 difference (rather than 0.25) in average ratings given by women and men

18. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty: Comparisons by Race/Ethnicity Faculty of color gave notably more favorable ratings than white faculty for –Nature of work Support for travel to present/conduct research (3.23 vs2.97) Support for faculty in leadership roles (3.22 vs 2.81) Ability to balance teaching/research/service (3.66 vs 3.36) –Interdisciplinary work Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in tenure (3.11 vs 2.80) –Tenure policies, clarity, reasonableness Clarity of body of evidence for deciding tenure (4.00 vs 3.70) Clarity of expectations: advisor (3.56 vs 3.23) –Retention Decision to remain here is based on promotion (3.64 vs 3.24)

19. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty: Comparisons by Race/Ethnicity Faculty of color gave notably less favorable ratings than white faculty for: Promotion: Clarity of –Promotion process (3.81 vs 4.09) –Promotion criteria (3.68 vs 3.99) –Promotion standards (3.41 vs 3.68) –Time frame for promotion (3.39 vs 3.71) –Whether I will be promoted (3.08 vs 3.34) Overall satisfaction –Visible leadership for support of diversity/inclusion (3.44 vs 4.05) –I would again choose this institution (3.51 vs 3.76) Department collegiality, engagement, and quality –Colleagues are committed to diversity/inclusion (3.58 vs 4.03) –Department is successful at faculty retention (3.21 vs 3.49) Personal and family policies –Stop-the-clock policies (3.42 vs 3.71) –Salary (2.48 vs 2.83) Collaboration –Opportunities for collaboration within the department (3.42 vs 3.84)

20. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty: Comparisons by Tenure Status Pre-tenure faculty gave notably more favorable ratings than tenured faculty for: Nature of work –Support for travel to present/conduct research (3.26 vs 2.96) –Support for faculty in leadership roles (3.13 vs 2.83) Facilities and work resources –Clerical/administrative support (3.21 vs 2.93) Personal and family policies –Tuition waivers/remission/exchange (2.43 vs 2.10) Health and retirement benefits –Retirement benefits (3.35 vs 3.00) Mentoring –Effectiveness of mentoring from outside the institution (3.92 vs 3.64) –Importance of mentoring Within department (4.41 vs 4.13) Outside department (3.53 vs 3.26) Outside the institution (3.93 vs 3.49) Leadership and Governance –Dean: support in adapting to change (2.78 vs 2.52) –Head: fairness in evaluating work (4.17 vs 3.86)

21. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty: Comparisons by Tenure Status Pre-tenure faculty gave notably less favorable ratings than tenured faculty on only one item –Right balance between professional/personal (3.02 vs 3.43)

22. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty: Comparisons by Rank Associate professors gave notably more favorable ratings than full professors on only a few items Eldercare (2.87 vs 2.51) Importance of mentoring outside department (3.46 vs 3.17) Importance of mentoring outside the institution (3.67 vs 3.40)

23. Pre-Tenure & Tenured Faculty: Comparisons by Rank Associate professors gave notably less favorable ratings than full professors on most items, especially for*: Promotion –Reasonableness of expectations for promotion (3.46 vs 4.14) –Department culture encourages promotion (3.45 vs 4.26) –Clarity of Time frame for promotion (3.06 vs 4.00) Promotion process (3.56 vs 4.33) Body of evidence for promotion (3.56 vs 4.24) Promotion criteria (3.54 vs 4.17) Promotion standards (3.28 vs 3.84) Nature of work –Ability to balance teaching/research/service (3.15 vs 3.59) Mentoring/Collaboration –Mentoring of associate faculty (2.28 vs 2.94) –Support for faculty to be good mentors (2.10 vs 2.51) –Opportunities for collaboration within department (3.65 vs 3.91) * Items with at least a 0.40 difference (rather than 0.25) in average ratings given by associate and full professors

24. Non-Tenure Track Faculty: Most Favorably Rated Aspects of Work (Average = 4.0 or higher) Nature of Work –Discretion over courses content (4.30) –Time spent on teaching (4.24) Resources –Library resources (4.30) Mentoring –Importance of mentoring w/in dept (4.33) –Being a mentor is fulfilling (4.06)

25. Non-Tenure Track Faculty: Least Favorably Rated Aspects of Work (Average = 2.75 or lower) Promotion –Clarity of NTT promotion process (2.58) –Clarity of NTT promotion standards (2.59) –Clarity of NTT promotion criteria (2.64) –Clarity of body of evidence for promotion for NTTs (2.69) –Clarity of whether will be promoted (2.69) Department life –Dept addresses sub-standard performance (2.42) –Discussions of grad student learning (2.56) Nature of Work –Availability of course release for research (2.73) Mentoring –Mentoring of non-tenure track faculty in department (2.56) –Support for faculty to be good mentors (2.64) Interdisciplinary Work –Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in merit (2.68) –Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in promotion (2.71) Compensation/Benefits –Childcare (2.45) –Housing benefits (2.63) –Spousal/partner hiring programs (2.63) –Salary (2.65) –Health benefits for family (2.75)

26. Non-Tenure Track Faculty: Compared to Tenure Track Faculty (Pre-tenure/Tenured Combined) NTT faculty gave notably more favorable ratings than pre-tenure & tenured faculty for many (most) items, especially those related to…. –Nature of work: Support for research, teaching, etc. –Personal and family policies (including balance, flexible workload/duties,) –Health and retirement benefits –Leadership and governance

27. Non-Tenure Track Faculty: Compared to Tenure Track Faculty (Pre-Tenure & Tenured Combined) NTTs gave notably less favorable ratings than pre-tenure & tenured faculty for: Department life –Discussions of graduate student learning (2.56 vs 3.59) –Discussions of current research methods (2.93 vs 3.40) –Amount of professional interaction with tenured faculty (3.36 vs 3.76) –How well you fit (3.28 vs 3.67) –Teaching effectiveness of tenured faculty (3.37 vs 3.76) –Amount of professional interaction with pre-tenure faculty (3.43 vs 3.82) –Department addresses sub-standard performance (2.42 vs 2.79) –Amount of person interaction have w/ pre-tenure faculty (3.34 vs 3.64) –Teaching effectiveness of pre-tenure faculty (3.67 vs 3.96) Appreciation and recognition –Recognition for scholarship (3.16 vs 3.41) Nature of work –Influence over focus of research (3.99 vs 4.34) Collaboration –Opportunities for collaboration outside the institution (3.39 vs 3.86) Mentoring –Effectiveness of mentoring from outside the institution (3.44 vs 3.70)

28. Important Areas for Discussion and Action Benefits Personal/family policies Support Balance Interdisciplinarity Mentoring Tenure and promotion Department life Diversity Leadership Lower general satisfaction: women, associate professors and NTT faculty compared to men, full professors, T/TT faculty –

29. Important Areas for Discussion and Action Benefits/Personal and Family Policies: –Health benefits for family and employee [overall, v peers, NTT] –Childcare [overall, NTT women] –Tuition wavers/remission/exchange [overall, FOC, v peers] –Housing benefits [overall, NTT] –Eldercare [overall, assoc] –Retirement [v peers, FOC] –Stop-the-clock policies [FOC] –Salary [FOC, NTT] –Spousal/partner hiring [NTT]

30. Important Areas for Discussion and Action Support –Clerical/administrative support [v peers, FOC] –Support for research [overall] –Support for faculty to be good mentors [women, assoc] Balance –Ability to balance teaching/research/service [women, assoc] –Equity of committee assignments [women] –Right balance between professional/personal [women, pre-tenure faculty]

31. Important Areas for Discussion and Action Interdisciplinary Work –Budgets encourage interdisciplinary work [overall] –Facilities are conducive to interdisciplinary work [overall] –Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in merit [overall, assoc profs, NTT] –Interdisciplinary work rewarded in tenure [women] –Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in promotion [overall, assoc, NTT Mentoring –Support for faculty to be good mentors [overall, women, assoc, NTT women] –Mentoring of associate faculty [overall, assoc profs] –Mentoring of NTT faculty [NTT] –Effectiveness of mentoring from outside the institution [women, NTT]

32. Important Areas for Discussion and Action Promotion and Tenure –Department culture encourages promotion [women, assoc] –Clarity of promotion criteria [women, assoc, NTT, FOC] promotion process [women, assoc, NTT, FOC] promotion standards [assoc, NTT, FOC] time frame for promotion [women, assoc, FOC] body of evidence for promotion [assoc, NTT] –Reasonableness of expectations for promotion [assoc profs] –Tenure decisions are performance based [women] –Clarity about whether I will be promoted [NTT, FOC]

33. Important Areas for Discussion and Action Department life –Amount of professional interaction with tenured faculty [NTT] –How well you fit [NTT] –Amount of professional interaction with pre-tenure faculty [NTT] –Amount of person interaction have w/ pre-tenure faculty [NTT] –Teaching effectiveness of pre-tenure faculty [NTT] –Department addresses sub-standard performance [NTT] –Opportunities for collaboration within department [assoc, NTT, FOC] Diversity –Colleagues committed to diversity [Women/FOC] –Visible leadership for support or diversity [FOC]

34. Important Areas for Discussion and Action Leadership (department, college, institution) –Clear and consistent priorities [overall] –Support for adapting to change [overall, FOC] –Department and college valued by provost [women]

35. Next Steps Presentation to the Vice Provosts and Deans’ Council this week; discussion of college reports later Presentations to Faculty Senate and Faculty Well Being Advisory Committee Post reports on UPA website Presentations to other groups on campus as appropriate Discussions of promotion with associate profs, tenured women, NTT faculty Continued focus on benefits, work/life issues, support, balance, diversity Development of capacity in interdisciplinarity, mentoring Clear priorities and leadership for change Improve department climate Participate in COACHE every 3 years (next in 2014-2015 VOTE OBAMA TOMORROW