ADR Committee draft
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
This survey is the first since 1999 on this campus.  Generally, the CNCR recommends such surveys a bit more frequently, but the ADR committee was for the most part dormant until its recent revival.  Most of the members are new to ADR, and as part of a meeting that Lin Enlow had with us in 2005, we decided that it was time for a new survey.
Group put together through invitations and demonstrated interest in the issues.  Cher is not a member but did work on the mechanical aspect of the survey.
While at first this survey seems broader than these items might indicate, it is important to assess general concerns in order to identify potential conflicts.  And by conflicts, we mean both interpersonal and institutional.
This is an assessment tool, and I’m sure you’re well aware of the issues surrounding assessment.  In fact, there was a great deal of suspicion (as well as excitement) when we announced this survey.  We’re here to see what support we have from you to continue with this work.
Although the what matters a great deal—there are certainly issues that are not related to perception here—it is how we deal with and interpret issues that are the bigger part of conflict management.
Universities are particularly well-known for being sources of conflict.  The balance between academic freedom and collegiality is fertile ground for conflict.  Typically, collegiality is used interchangeably with civility, but the dictionary definition of collegiality is one of shared authority.  Civility refers to behavior.  As we talk about collegiality in the context of this survey, we want to make it clear that we are talking about the balance of power among various groups.
Our purpose is to answer the first question.  Our committee’s work is to participate in the development of answers to the second two questions, but we are not a problem-solving committee.
We were quite pleased with this response rate.  We did a great deal of phone-calling, accosting individuals, e-mailing, and more to get responses.  Many individuals asked for assurance that it was a confidential survey before they would respond.
Value is both positive and negative.  Respondents reported feeling less valued as they talked about people and departments outside of their immediate environment, but they also expressed a deep sense of pride and sense of being valued by their immediate colleagues and students.  We separated out CR knowledge because we wanted to focus on the issues that would help anticipate future conflicts.
A lot of positive things expressed in horizontal relationships; vertical ones more problematic.  Our experiences have been that many requests for mediation come to us in part because of a problem in policy and procedure interpretation.
This was even an issue for people who wanted to take the survey.  It took a GREAT deal of convincing to get the response rates we did for both the faculty and staff surveys.
“Resources” used to refer to space, funds, faculty positions, library resources.
Respondents indicated that all constituents suffer from this lack of resources.
18% of respondents are responsible for hiring, disciplinary actions, etc.
81.8% are not.  (100 respondents from Facilities alone)
Third item is an illustration of our experiences in mediation requests. 
This leads us to what appears to be one of the primary issues for faculty on this campus:  the fact that the President chairs the Senate.
Many, many comments were about this issue.
This was a problematic area for the survey.  The comments indicate that we need to explore this, but we need to focus better on how we do that.  Respondents answered from many perspectives, including those of interactions w/students, colleagues, the community, and others.
The quantitative data indicates that most respondents for both surveys leaned toward the positive, but the comments indicated other opinions as well.
These are some examples of how respondents interpreted and responded to the section on tolerance.  Most felt that they had not problem with their colleagues, but there were concerns.  For instance, “I am still disturbed that there is handicap parking, a wheelchair ramp, and a handicap door button right next to the new campus center, but disabled people (not to mention anyone else) are not allowed to use that entrance. “
The first item showed up in a number of contexts. We have also heard it during intakes for mediation requests.
While this question isn’t directly related to “value,” the open-ended portion did reveal thoughts on the issue.  These numbers also indicate that while there is a general frustration over many things, there is a strong sense of loyalty to the institution.
We suspect that this may be changing due to the increased numbers of requests we have received.  (7 since July.)  However, the second two numbers reveal a problem even if more people did know about the options available to them.
This indicates a sense that conflict is the result of other issues that may not be what the conflict seems to be about.  This also is similar to the concept of collegiality that I mentioned earlier.
Awareness of policies was better in this section, but open-ended comments still indicated that many would not use the policies based on confidentiality and power disparity issues.  44.1% indicated that they had experienced some form of conflict that was not resolved in way that was satisfactory.  37.2% indicated that they were unsure if reporting conflicts was encouraged.
Comments in this area addressed all procedures (informal and formal) for grievances, appeals, mediation requests, etc.
Recognition of low morale and conflict as the result of “learning on the job.”  There were comments about having to train oneself.
While this isn’t necessarily one of the top five issues, it is a theme, like that of distrust, in nearly every portion of the survey.  Given the current communication audit, we thought it would be worth examining this issue in this survey as well.
Similar to the “lack of voice”?  This information comes not only from the survey but also from our own interactions in mediation requests, etc.
We are certainly still working on the first question.  We’re using all of the tools in the second column to figure that out, and we are engaging members of the community who are not necessarily members of the committee.  But the answers to the second two questions must be created by all of us.  We have to understand our direction and the reasons we’ve mapped it out as a certain route.