COACHE: Tenure-Track Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey

1
COACHE Tenure-Track Faculty Job Satisfaction
Survey

• Conducted by the Harvard Graduate School of
  Education The Collaborative on Academic Careers
  in Higher Education
• Office of Institutional Research
• Research Series
• Fall 2006

2
Theoretical framework

• Sociological/generational theory
• Generation-X
• Born between 1965-1980
• Skeptical
• Believe parents suffered from VDD- vacation
  deficit disorder
• Willing to work hard but wants to decide when,
  where and how

3
Generational comparison
TRADITIONALIST (1900-1945) BOOMER (1946-1964) GEN-X (1965-1980)
Chain of command Chain of command Self-command Collaborative
Build a legacy Build a stellar career Build a portable career
Satisfaction of a job well done Money, title, recognition, corner office Freedom
If we give into the demands for flexibility who will do the work? I cant believe the nerve of those Xers. They want it all. Ill go where I can find the lifestyle I am seeking.
Job changing creates a stigma. Job changing puts you behind. Job changing is necessary.
If I am not yelling at you, you are doing fine. Feedback once a year, well documented Sorry to interrupt again, but how am I doing?
4
Purpose of the COACHE study

• Make the academy a more equitable and appealing
  place for new faculty to work in order to recruit
  and maintain top talent
• Increase the recruitment, retention, status,
  success and satisfaction of faculty of color
• Give voice to early career faculty
• Produce structural and cultural changes on
  campuses

5
COACHE themes

• Importance and effectiveness of policies
• Tenure clarity and reasonableness of expectations
• Work load and environment
• Climate, culture collegiality and support
• Global satisfaction

6
Survey design and analysis

• Survey design and questions based on focus group
  research using a sociological/generational
  framework
• Survey conducted and analysis provided through
  Harvard Graduate School of Education
• Comparisons within school (overall, female and
  minority) and between school and peers
• Significant results or more than one standard
  deviation from the mean

7
Statistical briefs

• 118 faculty invited to participate
• 59.3 completion rate
• Slightly higher than national rate of 56
• Within UNC
• Greatest UNC-Asheville at 83.3
• Smallest Winston-Salem State at 33.3

8
Visual measurement approach

• UNCW mean compared with peer mean overall and by
  sub-groupings (gender and ethnicity)
• Peers selected by GA were ASU, FSU, NCCU, UNC-P,
  WCU
• Slide for each group of questions by theme and
  mean comparisons are noted as follows
• UNCW mean and (peer mean) included in each cell
  when available

UNCW mean was more than one standard deviation
above the comparison group mean
UNCW mean was more than one standard deviation
below the comparison group mean
9
CLIMATE, CULTURE AND COLLEGIALITY
10
QUESTIONS RELATED TO CLIMATE, CULTURE AND COLLEGIALITY COMPARED TO PEER COMPARED TO PEER COMPARED TO PEER COMPARED TO PEER COMPARED TO PEER
QUESTIONS RELATED TO CLIMATE, CULTURE AND COLLEGIALITY Overall Male Female Color White
Satisfaction with the amount of professional interaction they have with junior colleagues in their dept. 4.18 (4.02)  4.12 (4.12) 4.25 (3.92) 4.11 (3.84) 4.20 (4.06)
Satisfaction with the amount of personal interaction they have with junior colleagues in their dept. 4.15 (4.04) 4.11 (4.21) 4.19 (3.85) 3.93 (3.83) 4.21 (4.00)
Satisfaction with the fairness of their immediate supervisor's evaluation of their work 4.13 (4.05) 4.22 (4.17) 4.03 (3.94) 4.04 (4.28) 4.16 (3.98)
Satisfaction with how well they "fit" in their department 3.89 (3.95) 3.95 (4.13)  3.82 (3.75) 3.83 (4.01) 3.91 (3.85)
Satisfaction with the amount of personal interaction they have with senior colleagues in their dept 3.83 (3.92) 3.69 (4.20) 3.99 (3.60) 3.96 (3.77) 3.79 (3.83)
Sense that their department treats junior faculty fairly compared to one another 3.76 (3.85) 3.80 (4.03) 3.71 (3.65) 3.83 (4.05) 3.74 (3.78)
Satisfaction with the amount of professional interaction they have with senior colleagues in their dept. 3.58 (3.74) 3.41 (3.87) 3.80 (3.63) 3.92 (3.63) 3.49 (3.80)
Satisfaction with the interest senior faculty take in their professional development 3.46 (3.57) 3.60 (3.71) 3.29 (3.44) 3.38 (3.74) 3.48 (3.44)
Sense of unity and cohesion among the faculty in their department 3.42 (3.54) 3.56 (3.83) 3.26 (3.22) 3.41 (3.65) 3.43 (3.46)
Satisfaction with their opportunities to collaborate with senior faculty 3.42 (3.58) 3.20 (3.62) 3.69 (3.55) 3.12 (3.67) 3.50 (3.56)
Satisfaction with the intellectual vitality of the senior colleagues in their department 3.37 (3.42) 3.27 (3.58) 3.48 (3.24) 3.70 (3.53) 3.28 (3.27)
Sense of unity and cohesion among the faculty in their School 2.99 (3.11) 2.91 (3.09) 3.10 (3.13) 3.18 (3.39) 2.94 (2.99)
Example 5-point scale 5-very satisfied to
1-very unsatisfied
11
NATURE OF WORK
12
QUESTIONS RELATED TO NATURE OF WORK
QUESTIONS RELATED TO NATURE OF WORK Overall Male Female Color White
Satisfaction with the discretion they have over the content of courses they teach 4.62 (4.58) 4.65 (4.72) 4.58 (4.43) 4.39 (4.60) 4.67 (4.53)
Satisfaction with the influence they have over the focus of their research 4.36 (4.30) 4.47 (4.41) 4.23 (4.21) 3.77 (4.40) 4.49 (4.28)
Satisfaction with the influence they have over which courses they teach 4.21 (4.14) 4.08 (4.28) 4.38 (3.99) 4.01 (4.38) 4.26 (4.01)
Satisfaction with the level of the courses they teach 4.18 (4.12) 4.22 (4.08) 4.12 (4.14) 3.78 (4.21) 4.28 (4.05)
Satisfaction with the number of students they teach 3.79 (3.89) 3.86 (4.05) 3.70 (3.75) 3.70 (3.96) 3.81 (3.95)
Satisfaction with the quality of computing services 3.75 (3.62) 3.75 (3.73) 3.76 (3.54) 4.16 (3.80) 3.65 (3.51)
Satisfaction with the quality of teaching services 3.71 (3.74) 3.85 (3.83) 3.52 (3.66) 3.87 (3.82) 3.66 (3.60)
Satisfaction with the way they spend their time as faculty members 3.67 (3.85)  3.76 (3.99) 3.55 (3.70) 3.57 (3.99) 3.69 (3.81)
Satisfaction with the quality of graduate students with whom they interact 3.63 (3.41)  3.26 (3.24) 4.09 (3.61) 3.44 (3.60) 3.68 (3.34)
Satisfaction with the number of courses they teach 3.61 (3.25)  3.39 (3.27) 3.88 (3.24) 3.79 (3.62) 3.57 (3.05)
Satisfaction with the quality of clerical/administrative services 3.49 (3.47) 3.33 (3.57) 3.70 (3.37) 3.96 (3.72) 3.38 (3.39)
Satisfaction with what's expected of them as researchers 3.47 (3.40) 3.45 (3.74) 3.49 (3.05) 3.69 (3.69) 3.41 (3.40)
Satisfaction with the quality of undergraduate students with whom they interact 3.05 (3.07) 2.77 (3.05) 3.41 (3.13) 2.80 (3.11) 3.12 (2.94)
Satisfaction with the amount of research funding they are expected to find 2.89 (2.66) 2.97 (2.90) 2.81 (2.44) 2.53 (2.79) 2.98 (2.61)
Satisfaction with the quality of facilities 2.85 (2.98)  3.03 (3.09) 2.62 (2.89) 3.06 (3.20) 2.79 (3.07)
Satisfaction with the quality of research services 2.72 (2.81) 2.56 (2.88) 2.91 (2.79) 3.00 (2.98) 2.64 (2.67)
Satisfaction with the amount of access they have to Teaching Fellows, Graduate Assistants, et al 2.57 (2.48) 2.62 (2.56) 2.51 (2.38) 2.57 (2.49) 2.57 (2.49)
Satisfaction with the amount of time they have to conduct research 2.03 (2.18) 2.14 (2.40) 1.90 (2.00) 2.17 (2.78) 2.00 (2.07)
Example 5-point scale 5-very satisfied to 1-very
unsatisfied
13
TENURE
14
QUESTIONS RELATED TO TENURE PEER COMPARISON PEER COMPARISON PEER COMPARISON PEER COMPARISON PEER COMPARISON
QUESTIONS RELATED TO TENURE Overall Male Female Color White
Reasonableness of the expectations for performance as a student advisor 4.08 (3.95) 4.24 (4.01) 3.87 (3.88) 3.68 (4.27) 4.18 (3.82)
Reasonableness of the expectations for performance as a teacher 4.05 (4.30)  4.30 (4.34) 3.72 (4.24) 3.47 (4.50) 4.20 (4.19)
Reasonableness of the expectations for performance as a department colleague 4.02 (3.99)  4.11 (4.10) 3.92 (3.87) 4.17 (4.21) 3.98 (3.84)
Reasonableness of the expectations for performance as a scholar 3.92 (3.88) 3.80 (4.16) 4.06 (3.57) 4.08 (4.24) 3.88 (3.78)
Clarity of their own prospects for earning tenure 3.86 (3.91) 3.92 (4.08) 3.79 (3.72) 4.02 (4.09) 3.82 (3.87)
Reasonableness of the expectations for performance as a campus citizen 3.86 (3.80) 3.85 (3.92) 3.86 (3.67) 4.00 (3.91) 3.82 (3.74)
Clarity of the expectations for performance as a teacher 3.82 (4.05)  3.87 (3.98) 3.76 (4.12)  3.69 (4.20) 3.86 (3.94)
Reasonableness of the expectations for performance as a community member 3.82 (3.62)  3.86 (3.72) 3.77 (3.50) 3.68 (3.77) 3.86 (3.53)
Clarity of the expectations for performance as a student advisor 3.53 (3.65) 3.44 (3.63) 3.64 (3.68) 3.55 (3.89) 3.53 (3.44)
Clarity of the expectations for performance as a campus citizen 3.50 (3.61) 3.37 (3.72) 3.66 (3.50) 3.54 (3.79) 3.49 (3.44)
Clarity of the tenure process 3.45 (3.62) 3.49 (3.69) 3.40 (3.54) 3.51 (3.71) 3.44 (3.57)
Clarity of the expectations for performance as a scholar  3.37 (3.68) 3.32 (3.76)  3.43 (3.58) 3.89 (3.88) 3.24 (3.56) 
Clarity of the expectations for performance as a department colleague 3.35 (3.63)  3.22 (3.71) 3.51 (3.53) 3.59 (3.91) 3.28 (3.40)
Perception that tenure decisions are based primarily on performance 3.33 (3.16) 3.25 (3.21) 3.41 (3.08) 3.65 (3.15) 3.25 (3.25)
Clarity of the criteria for tenure 3.2 (3.53)  3.26 (3.63) 3.40 (3.41) 3.41 (3.69) 3.30 (3.51)
Clarity of the expectations for performance as a community member 3.28 (3.25) 3.18 (3.32) 3.41 (3.18) 3.28 (3.76) 3.28 (2.97)
Clarity of the body of evidence that will be considered in making decisions about their own tenure 3.2 (3.37)  3.19 (3.44) 3.23 (3.31) 3.52 (3.60) 3.12 (3.23)
Clarity of the standards for tenure 3.03 (3.27) 2.87 (3.35) 3.23 (3.17) 3.49 (3.46) 2.91 (3.21)
Not receiving mixed messages from senior colleagues about the requirements of tenure  2.34 (2.62) 2.29 (2.76) 2.42 (2.48) 2.87 (2.84) 2.21 (2.64)
Example 5-point scale 5-very clear to 1-very
unclear
15
POLICIES AND PRACTICES
16
QUESTIONS RELATED TO POLICIES AND PRACTICES PEER COMPARISON PEER COMPARISON PEER COMPARISON PEER COMPARISON PEER COMPARISON
QUESTIONS RELATED TO POLICIES AND PRACTICES Overall Male Female Color White
Effectiveness of informal mentoring          
Effectiveness of periodic, formal performance reviews  
Departmental colleagues do what they can to make having children and the tenure-track compatible 3.63 (3.77) 3.91 (3.96) 3.20 (3.59) 3.22 (3.68) 3.71 (3.74)
Effectiveness of travel funds to present papers or conduct research
Departmental colleagues do what they can to make raising children and the tenure-track compatible 3.59 (3.72) 3.94 (3.91) 3.06 (3.58) 3.34 (3.94) 3.65 (3.66)
Effectiveness of written summary of periodic performance reviews  
Effectiveness of peer reviews of teaching and research  
Effectiveness of professional assistance for improving teaching
Effectiveness of an upper limit on teaching obligations      
Effectiveness of formal mentoring program      
Satisfaction with the balance they are able to strike between professional time and personal or family time 2.88 (3.01) 3.12 (3.40) 2.60 (2.60) 2.70 (2.97) 2.93 (3.10)
Effectiveness of an upper limit on committee assignments    
Effectiveness of stop-the-tenure-clock for parental or other family reasons      
Institution does what it can to make raising children and the tenure-track compatible 2.52 (3.00)  2.60 (3.16) 2.41 (2.83) 2.90 (3.58) 2.44 (2.89)
Satisfaction with compensation 2.51 (2.80)  2.46 (2.73) 2.56 (2.87) 2.27 (2.56) 2.57 (2.88)
Effectiveness of professional assistance in obtaining externally funded grants    
Institution does what it can to make having children and the tenure-track compatible 2.45 (2.93)  2.56 (3.03) 2.30 (2.81) 2.60 (3.14) 2.43 (2.93)
Effectiveness of spousal/partner hiring program        
Effectiveness of paid or unpaid personal leave during the probationary period      
Effectiveness of paid or unpaid research leave during the probationary period    
Effectiveness of financial assistance with housing        
Effectiveness of child care      
Example 5-point scale 5-very effective to 1-very
ineffective
17
GLOBAL SATISFACTION
18
GLOBAL SATISFACTION
PEER COMPARISON PEER COMPARISON PEER COMPARISON PEER COMPARISON PEER COMPARISON
Overall Male Female Color White
Sense that if they had to do it over again, they would accept their current position Sense that if they had to do it over again, they would accept their current position 3.97 (4.16)  4.13 (4.25) 3.77 (4.05) 3.89 (3.96) 3.98 (4.14)
Satisfaction with their departments as places to work Satisfaction with their departments as places to work 3.94 (3.97) 4.03 (4.12) 3.84 (3.78) 4.00 (4.06) 3.93 (3.86)
Rating their institution as a place for junior faculty to work Rating their institution as a place for junior faculty to work 3.76 (3.69) 3.78 (3.76) 3.73 (3.63) 4.00 (3.85) 3.69 (3.65)
Satisfaction with their institution as a place to work Satisfaction with their institution as a place to work 3.71 (3.64) 3.65 (3.65) 3.78 (3.65) 4.01 (3.95) 3.64 (3.48)
Satisfaction that the CAO at their institution seems to care about the quality of life for junior faculty Satisfaction that the CAO at their institution seems to care about the quality of life for junior faculty 3.37 (3.62) 3.28 (3.67) 3.53 (3.56) 3.71 (4.07) 3.26 (3.37)
19
Top five best and worst aspects about working at
UNCW
Best
Worst
20
Best and Worst across UNC
Best
Worst

• Compensation
• Average 2 (14 schools)
• Teaching load
• Average 2.25 (12 schools)
• Lack of support for research
• Average 2.8 (15 schools)
• Quality of UG students
• Average 3 (11 schools)
• Too much service/too many assignments
• Average 4.44 (9 schools)

• Geographic location
• Average 1.78 (14 schools)
• My sense of fit here
• Average 2.07 (14 schools)
• Diversity
• Average 2.7 (6 schools)
• Quality of colleagues
• Average 3.4 (10 schools)
• Support of colleagues
• Average 3.5 (10 schools)

21
What can we learn?

• How does UNCW compare to its peers?
• Are there significant differences by demographic
  category?
• Are there areas where we do especially well? Not
  as well?
• What changes in policy or practice could we
  consider to positively impact these results?