1	Campus Culture & Climate Survey Faculty & Staff, 2006
2	ADR Committee Dianne Smith (Staff Co-Liaison) Denise Overfield (Faculty Co-Liaison) Elaine Heath-Ward (COE) Teresa Traylor (Auxiliary Services) Patsy Barr (Budget Services) DeLandra Hunter (EXCEL Center) Anneliesa Finch (Advanced Academy) Taffy Barlow (Advanced Academy) Skip Clark (Graduate School) Shelly Elman (A&S-Mass Comm/Theatre) David Goff (A&S-Mass Comm/Theatre) Mary-Kathryn Zachary (RCOB-Management) Robert Lane (A&S-Philosophy) *Thanks to Cher Hendricks (COE-Educational Leadership)
3	Purpose of Survey To identify current conflicts and anticipate future conflicts To initiate assessment of current conflict handling procedures
4	Why do assessment? We’re doing just fine without it. Let’s use assessment to find out what works, and to help us document and build on our successes. They’ll use the results against us. They might. Let’s build in strong safeguards against misuse before we agree to assess. No one will care what we use or find. Let’s agree not to continue without a firm commitment from stakeholders to use the results.
5	Perception
6	Survey Context Reductions in financial resources Reduced enrollment Delayed pay raises/salary compression State legislature issues Changes in leadership Growth All are factors in organizational conflict.
7	3 Main Questions Where are we now? Where do we want to go? How do we get there?
8	Steps Researched CC surveys from other institutions Developed a list of questions for faculty and a list for staff Piloted surveys On-line administration of survey Paper/pencil administration for some groups Compiled initial results Committee began initial identification of issues
9	Other Sources Reports from various departments and units Records of requests for mediation and grievances Anecdotal evidence
10	Respondents 208 faculty (39.4%) 301 staff (39.1%) Respondents included all faculty & staff ranks, including part-time Respondents from all colleges and units
11	Top Issues FACULTY Lack of trust in procedures and policies Resources (lack of w/regard to salary, facilities, etc.) Role of faculty in governance structure Diversity Value STAFF Value Salary Professional development Pride
12	Lack of Trust Always expressed in terms that are related to hierarchy: relationships with administrators, relationships between junior/senior faculty, supervisors/staff, etc. Present in all portions of survey Less strong in staff survey than in faculty survey, but still present
13	Resources Faculty “I got a chair once ....” 78.8% of faculty respondents say that resources are not adequate
14	Resources Staff Salary issues were present in nearly all portions of the staff survey in open-ended comments. “I need a raise in the worst way. I live in poverty.” “I made more money in 1992 than I do now.” 55.3% of staff respondents are hourly employees. 4.4% do not receive benefits.
15	Faculty Governance 42.9% indicated that they do not know the charges of Senate subcommittees 22.6% do not believe that faculty committee work is recognized or valued at annual review; 31.7% are neutral 34.1% do not believe that governance processes and committee charges are followed faithfully by administrators
16	Faculty Governance “Overall, I sense an emphasis on top-down policy making that goes around, rather than through, committees.” “…the administration says they're listening; acting on suggestions is a different story. Also, I feel sometimes that our needs as faculty are merely pacified instead of addressed.”
17	Faculty Governance Concerns about the President chairing the Faculty Senate included: Inability for faculty to develop a voice and identity Inhibited discussion and agenda Sense that governance work is merely rubber-stamping
18	Faculty Governance In response to the following statement: “UWG promotes faculty governance through the Faculty Senate and its subcommittees” 64.4% indicated that they strongly disagreed, disagreed, or were neutral.
19	Diversity
20
21	Open-ended comments revealed many opinions in this area for both surveys. Cited: Lack of diversity in higher administration and faculty and perceived lack of commitment to addressing the issue Working with students who seem intolerant of religious beliefs other than Christian beliefs Absence of sexual orientation in anti-discrimination policy Absence of domestic partner benefits Gender issues Access for the disabled
22	Sense of Value Staff Question: “If you had the opportunity to get another job with equal pay and benefits, would you choose to leave UWG?” Response: 41.7% would definitely not leave 36.9% don’t know 14.% would probably leave 6.8% would definitely leave
23	Sense of Value Staff “I’m never sure if I’m doing a good job or not.” “We just want what everyone wants: to be appreciated.”
24	Sense of Value Faculty Question: “If you had the opportunity to get another job with equal pay and benefits, would you choose to leave UWG?” Response 30.8% say they would definitely NOT leave 22.2% say they would probably leave 35.4% say they don’t know 11.6% say they would definitely leave
25	Sense of Value (Faculty): “I think there are very good people here. I have great respect for many of my co-workers. But the larger culture here, particularly coming from the upper administration, seems to place no value at all on teaching and scholarship. I understand that this institution does not have unlimited financial resources, but I could accept being badly paid and under-supported far more easily if I felt any sense of a shared mission.”
26	Sense of Value (Faculty) I am satisfied that the institution values: Teaching: 7.6% don’t know 34% not at all 45.2% somewhat 13.2% completely Scholarship & creativity: 18.7% don’t know 33.3% not at all 36.9% somewhat 13.2% completely
27	Conflict Resolution (Faculty): Factors preventing the use of alternative dispute resolution: 45.7% are not aware of policies related to conflict resolution. 44.2% indicated that power disparities would prevent them from seeking ADR options 28.8% feared a lack of confidentiality
28	Conflict Resolution (Faculty): “I don't know how the university resolves conflicts. However, I do believe that instead of trying to intervene later, it is necessary to establish first [a] democratic system where everybody can work equally.”
29	Conflict Resolution (Staff) 68.2 % indicated an awareness of conflict resolution policies Factors preventing the use of alternative dispute resolution: 36.2% indicated that confidentiality issues would prevent them from utilizing ADR 34.9% indicated that power disparities would prevent them from utilizing ADR
30	Conflict Resolution (Staff) “I’ve seen conflict ignored and swept under the rug.” “Retaliation.” “Fear of reprimand or firing from supervisor.”
31	Conflict Resolution (Faculty) “Intimidation and retaliation.” “The process will not work well and produce serious side-effects.” “Poorly structured - There are conflicting statements given by administrators, and the written procedures are not followed. No one seems to know the rules.”
32	Professional Development Staff Mentioned consistently in relation to hierarchical relationships and by both supervisors and their employees. “Incompetent supervisor caused extremely low morale.” “As a manager I have received very little mentoring.”
33	Communication Communication issues are not about the flow of information. The belief that staff and faculty cannot communicate concerns, or that no one is listening, is a recurring theme.
34
35	Communication Staff Staff indicate a sense of being invisible. “We never see the President or the Vice President.”
36	Communication Overview Governance Data for data’s sake—no commitment to change Staff and faculty indicate confusion about UWG’s vision and mission Some groups among both faculty and staff indicate confusion about ability (or right) to communicate about mission, vision, etc.
37	Areas to Explore “The department works brilliantly in spite of being understaffed; the College has some problems that concern me.” “I am proud of my students and their achievements, but I am not proud of the administration of this university and the values that it apparently promotes yet itself doesn't follow.” “I am proud. The end.”
38	3 Main Questions Where are we now? Where do we want to go? How do we get there? Focus groups Committee discussions Current review of handbook and PTR policies Follow-up discussions
39	Process This process must be a model of transparency and reflect the contributions of all groups on campus. Where do we go from here?