2009 survey of organizational excellence texas …...2009 survey of organizational excellence the...

2009

Survey of Organizational Excellence Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

Prepared by the Office of Planning and Institutional Effectiveness

2009 Survey of Organizational Excellence

The Higher Education Survey of Organizational Excellence is conducted every two years at Texas A&M University-

Corpus Christi. All

full time, benefits eligible staff are invited to complete the online survey.

This report is organized into the following sections:Section I: Demographics

Section II:

Survey Design and Key Findings

Section III:

Breakout Data by Dimension/Construct & Employment Category/Work Group

Section IV:

Local Items


Demographics

740

Full-time, benefits eligible employees with valid e-mail addresses


Number of Respondents, by Year

365

281

0

100

200

300

400

500

2007 2009

Respondents

Response Rates


Response Rates, by Year

54%

38%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007 2009

Response rate is likely lower than usual due to a prevalence of harmful “scam” emails on

campus at the time of administration. Staff indicated worries about responding to an email outside the TAMU-CC

web system. There was a large volume of calls and emails in

regard to this issue.

Additionally, in previous administrations of this survey at TAMU-CC, individuals could

follow a general survey link and enter their work group and

employment group information. However, in 2009 responses

were pre-coded before administration and potential

respondents were sent an individual link via email to

complete the survey. This may have led to greater difficulty

accessing the survey.

A positive side of the pre- coding is that it led to a complete elimination of

“Unidentified” respondents so all survey responses collected could be appropriately placed

by category groups.

Frequency of Responses, by Employment Category


58

154

85

19 2010

49

137

69

14 11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Exec/Admin Professional Secretarial/Clerical

Technical Service Skilled Trades

2007 2009

Exec/Admin - Executive, Administrative, Managerial

Professional - Academic, student, or institutional support work requiring

either college graduation or advanced experience

Secretarial/Clerical - Associate with clerical

activities or are specifically of a secretarial nature

Technical - Technical, Paraprofessional to include specialized field positions

Service - Non specialized maintenance/security

Skilled Trades - Special manual skills often acquired through

apprenticeships or other formal training

*There were <5 respondents for the Skilled Trades in 2009. No breakout data given.

Frequency of Responses, by Work Group

2009 Survey of Organizational Excellence7

23

28

31

14

10

21

14

18

10 11

15

18

7

16

33

10

14

11

8

6

8

41

29 28

5

7

15

12

10

9

15

17

7

12

21

10

6

5

11

6

0

10

20

30

40

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009

•Art Museum of South Texas

•Executive/Administrative/ Managerial

•Enrollment Services

•Dean of Students

•Institutional Advancement

•Core/CASA/Title V

•Library

•College of Liberal Arts

•College of Education

•College of Business

•College of Nursing & Health Sciences

•College of Science & Tech (Staff)

•College of Science & Tech (Institutes)

•Community Outreach

•Computing & Media Services

•Fiscal Affairs/Accounting/ Bursar/Purchasing

•University Services

•Physical Plant/PP Support

•University Police

•Athletic Department

•Human Resources/EEO*There were <5 respondents for the College of Nursing & Health Sciences in 2009. No breakout data given.


Survey Design &Key Findings


Survey Overview

•

The survey is administered throughout the State of Texas by the Institute for Organizational Excellence at the University of Texas-Austin.

•

TAMU-CC full time, benefits eligible staff members received an individual link to participate in the survey via email. Reminders were posted on Campus Announcements and through campus mail. The survey was completed online from October 26th

–

November 13th, 2009.•

The questions included on the survey are related to workplace satisfaction and employee engagement, including pay, training, communication,

and information sharing.

•

TAMU-CC had the opportunity to provide 20 locally developed survey items, which are chosen by the Staff Advisory Council.

•

Participation rates at TAMU-CC were lower than anticipated for the 2009 administration. This is seemingly due to an increase in scam e-mails that have increased staff hesitancy to click on links received from outside the TAMU-CC e-mail system, as well as a different survey delivery system that did not allow for the distribution of a ‘generic link’.


The score reporting system is as follows:

400-500: Superior performance; demonstrates substantial strength and excelled performance

351-399: Above average performance;

demonstrates advanced abilities or strength

300-350: Average/acceptable performance;

demonstrates adequate level of strength

200-299: Strong area of concern; scoring reflects

negative performance perceptions by employees


Employee responses are grouped into the following five dimensions:

400-500Superior performance

351-399Above average performance

300-350Average/acceptable

performance

200-299Strong area of concern

Response Dimensions TAMU-CC Overall Score

Personal Demands 381

Organizational Features 378

Information 370

Work Group Perceptions 368

Accommodations/Benefits 360


Key Findings: TAMU-CC Top

5 Constructs




performance


TAMU-CC Score

Physical Environment 398

Employment Development 392

Strategic Orientation 391

Quality 390

Burnout 390


Key Findings: TAMU-CC Bottom 5 Constructs




performance


TAMU-CC Score

Fair Pay 262

Internal Information 351

Team Effectiveness 353

Change Oriented 365

Supervisor Effectiveness 370


Key Findings: TAMU-CC Top

5 Increases from 2007




performance


Points Increased from 2007

Fair Pay 17

Fairness 12

Internal Information 12

Diversity 10


Only one item decreased from the 2007 administration, which was “Time and Stress" (a decrease of -1%).


Breakout Data by Dimension/Construct

& Employment Category/Work Group


Dimension: Work Group Perceptions(Score 368)

This dimension relates to the immediate work environment of the employee. It involves interactions with peers, supervisors, and all of the persons involved in employee’s day-to-day work activity. 400-500

Superior performance



performance


TAMU-CC Score

Supervisor Effectiveness 370

Fairness 372

Team Effectiveness 353

Diversity 378


Supervisor Effectiveness

Employee insight into the nature of supervisory relationships, including the quality of communication, leadership and fairness.

365 370

344 337 336

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC2007

TAMU-CC2009

Statewide Similar Size Higher Ed

TAMU-CC 2007 Overall rating for

TAMU-CC campus in 2007



Statewide Overall rating for all

participating state entities (agencies, institutions)

in 2009

Similar Size Overall rating for

participating agencies with 301 to 1000 staff members/employees in

2009

Higher Ed Overall rating for

universities, colleges, institutes, and other

agencies involved with students, teachers, and

administrators in the area of learning in 2009


Supervisor Effectiveness, by Employment Category

398

366 365 364

292

324

397

373360

369

296

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Supervisor Effectiveness, by Work Group

401

368

335

418

324

445

316

373

395

389 39

9

303

374

424

392

371

397

357

263

317

384

328

370 38

2 398

395

438

328

394 39

9

374

347

388

434

352

341

380

330

291

357

403

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library














•Human Resources/EEO


Fairness

The extent to which employees believe that equal opportunity exists for all members in the organization.

360372 363 357 353

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC 2007

TAMU-CC 2009








in 2009



2009






Fairness, by Employment Category

397

364 358366

273

315

399

375362

379

286

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Fairness, by Work Group

386

359

320

418

317

444

321

362

388

372 37

7

310

393

448

400

370 37

5

348

243

320

413

312

363

386 39

3 410 42

6

319

404

398

380

359

412

434

386

341

367

310

307

365

407

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















Team Effectiveness

Employee perception of the effectiveness of their work group and

the extent to which the organizational environment supports teamwork

among employees.

348 353 344 339 337

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC 2007

TAMU-CC 2009








in 2009



2009






Team Effectiveness, by Employment Category

371

348 353 353

283

335

365352 357

341

311

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Team Effectiveness, by Work Group

388

348

301

405

320

437

314

358

383

376 38

6

281

348

404

361

362

366

338

257

301

370

298

333

374

397

366

418

321

369 38

6

350

315

373

416

316

338

359

322

310

336

374

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















Diversity

The extent to which employees feel that individual differences, including ethnicity or lifestyle, may result in alienation and/or missed

opportunities for learning or advancement.

368378

359 354 355

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC 2007

TAMU-CC 2009








in 2009



2009






Diversity, by Employment Category

395

369 370 372

298

337

398380 372 372

316

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Diversity, by Work Group

407

374

326

414

338

463

311

393

422

387

413

322

368

447

390

371

373

367

250

326

396

341

373 38

3

413

369

422

346

398

390

393

364

397 40

2

378

347

369

333 337

375

424

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















Dimension: Accommodations(Score 360)

The physical work setting and factors associated with compensation, benefits, work technology, and tools –

the TBP-

“Total Benefits Package”

provided by the institution. 400-500




performance


TAMU-CC Score

Fair Pay 262

Adequacy of Physical Environment 398

Benefits 388



Fair Pay

Employee perceptions of the competiveness of the total compensation package, and how well it compares to similar jobs elsewhere in the community.

245262 260 269 267

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC2007

TAMU-CC2009








in 2009



2009






Fair Pay, by Employment Category

275

240 241222

237223

287

255267

221

259

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Fair Pay, by Work Group

285

278

229

255

235 25

8

199 21

4

288

252

300

236

288

209

187

212

266

245

272

233

20522

0

284

269 27

6

326

319

181

288

283

287

228

319

252

236

215

278

228

300

245

268

100

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















Adequacy of Physical Environment

Degree to which employees believe that a safe and pleasant working environment exists.

395 398380 380 380

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC2007

TAMU-CC2009








in 2009



2009






Adequacy of Physical Environment, by Employment Category

417397 395 393

338347

406 401 395408

341

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Adequacy of Physical Environment, by Work Group

414

417

361

437

369

435

344

401

421

409

411

371

409

460

409

399

422

392

295

318

433

368

392

395

431

395

448

390 40

4

390

425

396

419

442

405

383

409

354

305

368

433

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















Benefits

Indication of the role that the employment benefit package plays

in attracting and retaining employees.

384 388

361 368 372

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC2007

TAMU-CC2009








in 2009



2009






Benefits, by Employment Category

403385 383 384

337

363

405

384 390 382

353

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Benefits, by Work Group

400

398

390 39

5

345

419

373

395 40

1

400 40

6

357

388

380

362 37

1

390

392

351

391

388

413

402

369 37

8

426

453

383

411 41

6

414

348

398 40

5

359 37

5

403

377

348 36

0

422

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















Employment Development

Perception of the priority given to the career and development of employees by the organization.

383 392

357 354 355

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC2007

TAMU-CC2009








in 2009



2009






Employment Development, by Employment Category

415

387 383394

298

332

416

390 389 390

329

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Employment Development, by Work Group

363 38

0

361

442

340

443

361

404 41

3

358

421

327

416 42

6 432

390

382

357

260

374 38

3

350

399

388

428

387

454

380

402

393 398

366

407

435

376 38

4 397

333

336

384

375

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















Dimension: General Organization Features(Score 378)

An internal evaluation of the organization’s ability to assess and respond to changes in its environment. Also included are employee assessments of the quality of the institution’s relations with the public. This dimension captures key components of the “Institution Culture.” 400-500




performance


TAMU-CC Score

Change Oriented 365

Goal Oriented 374

Holographic 374

Strategic Orientation 391

Quality 390


Change Oriented

Employee perceptions of the institution’s capability and readiness to change based on new information and ideas.

360 365346 341 339

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC2007

TAMU-CC2009








in 2009



2009






Change Oriented, by Employment Category

378360 363 364

306

330

381369

358 357

298

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Change Oriented, by Work Group

406

371

330

393

342

426

341

360

396

376 39

0

292

363

399

372

366

400

346

286

316

350

353 35

9

378

403

387

425

346

381 38

7

361

330

372

397

340

336

359

346

304

365 37

5

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















Goal Oriented

The institution's ability to include all its members in focusing

resources towards goal accomplishments.

372 374362 357 353

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC2007

TAMU-CC2009








in 2009



2009






Goal Oriented, by Employment Category

388375 371

384

340

316

380 375 379369

326

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Goal Oriented, by Work Group

411

380

318

413

346

445

364 37

6

405

392 40

4

314

382

446

387

386

390

352

287

306

346

348 35

3

391

409

389

439

372

395

390

377

344

395

414

357

360

389

358

305

335

358

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















Holographic

The degree to which all sections of the institution ‘hang together’

and are understood by all. Perceptions of the consistency of decision making and activity

within the institution. Previously called “Coherence”.

369 374355 348 351

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC2007

TAMU-CC2009








in 2009



2009






Holographic, by Employment Category

387369 376

356

319

341

390376 370 364

318

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Holographic, by Work Group

399

384

345

402

355

437

319

379

402

374

407

322

373

410

373 37

9 391

363

276

348

375

342

362

389

415

391

418

341

397 40

6

355

349

385

410

359

349

383

356

305

372

399

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















Strategic Orientation

Employee perceptions about how the organization responds to external influences and an assessment of the institution’s ability to seek out and

work with external entities.

384 391 394 389 390

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC2007

TAMU-CC2009








in 2009



2009






Strategic Orientation, by Employment Category

386 379

401

368 362 357

401389 395

383

358

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Strategic Orientation, by Work Group

407

397

387

386

378

398

370

392

415

404

407

331

390

380

376

395

386

373

340

373

366

407

396

398 40

9 414

451

383

403 41

4

384

338

380 38

6

374

371

408

396

360

390 39

5

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















Quality

Employee perceptions of the degree to which quality principles, such as customer service and continuous improvement, are part of the

institutional culture.

383 390 391 389 387

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC2007

TAMU-CC2009








in 2009



2009






Quality, by Employment Category

407

386 388 391

311

334

401389 390

400

338

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Quality, by Work Group

389 40

1

332

422

381

451

360 36

6

416

407 41

6

325

401

451

410

397

381

381

307 32

2

387

340

376

398 41

2

407

460

385 40

1 414

400

357

414

411

378

380

414

386

320

354

409

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















Dimension: Information(Score 370)

How consistent and structured communication flow is, both within

the institution and to outside groups. How directed work concerns, focused and effective communication is, as well as how accessible information is to employees. 400-500




performance


TAMU-CC Score

Internal Communication 351

Availability of Information 372

External Communication 389


Internal Communication

The extent to which employees view information exchanges as open

and productive. Also, the extent to which computerized information is efficiently

exchanged across the entire institution.

339351

335 327 326

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC2007

TAMU-CC2009








in 2009



2009






Internal Communication, by Employment Category

348336

358

330

281

341359

350 357338

315

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Internal Communication, by Work Group

395

355

325

360

329

398

306

348

372

354 36

2

266

345

366

339

340

372

334

277

329

348

351

342

367

390

353

434

307

354

353

353

309

364

360

316 33

2

370

366

306

331

401

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















Availability of Information

Employees know where to get needed information and have the ability to access it in a timely manner.

366 372 373 366 363

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC2007

TAMU-CC2009








in 2009



2009






Availability of Information, by Employment Category

366 363

386

362

325

351

376 375 375356

341

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Availability of Information, by Work Group

392

380

363 37

5

358

400

326

362

397

364

387

307

373

357 37

1 387

381

367

323 33

1

384

347

367

393 40

1

379

441

359 37

0 376 38

3

343

373

361 36

8

349

383

366

316

350

405

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















External Communication

How information flows in and out of the organization. The ability of the institution to synthesize and apply external communication to work performed

by the institution.

381 389378 374 374

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC2007

TAMU-CC2009








in 2009



2009






External Communication, by Employment Category

390380

391378

332350

405387 389 382

350

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











External Communication, by Work Group

400

398

362

398

357

419

363

389

413

392 40

6

317

398 40

4

387 39

4

388

364

307

362

400

378 39

0 395

418

417

446

358

400 40

8

386

352

397 40

8

378

368

400

366

342

383 39

0

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















Dimension: Personal Demands(Score 381)

How much internalization of stress is occurring and the extent to which debilitating social and psychological conditions appear to be developing at the level of the individual employee. 400-500




performance


TAMU-CC Score

Job Satisfaction 385

Time and Stress Management 374

Burnout 390

Empowerment 378


Job Satisfaction

Employee satisfaction with the overall work situation, especially the availability of time and resources to perform jobs effectively.

380 385369 366 365

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC2007

TAMU-CC2009








in 2009



2009






Job Satisfaction, by Employment Category

394380 387 380

343363

393380

393402

354

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Job Satisfaction, by Work Group

376

380

346

424

354

439

345

400 41

7

396 40

6

335

403

390 39

5

383

413

402

303

329

400

347 36

3

409

410

393

442

383

403 40

9 418

364

408

447

368

362 37

3

348

326

354

377

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















Time and Stress Management

The extent to which employees feel that job demands are realistic, given time and resource constraints. Also about employee ability to balance work and home

demands. (NOTE: Higher score = lower stress)

375 374 366 363 360

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC2007

TAMU-CC2009








in 2009



2009






Time and Stress Management, by Employment Category(NOTE: Higher score = lower stress)

387372

389381

341350

377368

387 387

342

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Time and Stress Management, by Work Group(NOTE: Higher score = lower stress)

380

383

341

412

374

427

351 36

1

411

382 39

3

333

401

389

376 38

9 397

394

313

304

399

300

355

393

391

379

421

386

377

409

413

353

409 42

5

365

354 36

9

350

330 34

5

379

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















Burnout

The extent to which employees do NOT experience extreme mental exhaustion that can negatively impact physical health and job

performance. (NOTE: Higher score = lower burnout)

384 390371 366 369

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC2007

TAMU-CC2009








in 2009



2009






Burnout, by Employment Category(NOTE: Higher score = lower burnout)

409

385 387374

331340

406394

382 390

326

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Burnout, by Work Group(NOTE: Higher score = lower burnout)

406

391

361

426

367

440

335

400 41

6

380

416

349

395

417

398

390 40

5

370

290

353

416

340

383

406 41

8

415 42

9

355

413 42

5

386

374

405

442

385

357

390

369

320

390

420

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















Empowerment

The degree to which employees feel that they have some control over their jobs and the outcome of their efforts.

371 378363 357 361

200

300

400

500

TAMU-CC2007

TAMU-CC2009








in 2009



2009






Empowerment, by Employment Category

392

370378

358

322

346

393379 375 376

321

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











Empowerment, by Work Group

386

376

351

413

354

431

311

371

400

386

405

318

376

414

384

380 39

3

370

281

343

391

344

365

391 40

5

400

436

344

402 41

8

377

361

393

435

362

350

393

346

306

359

402

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















Local Items


2009 Local Items

Twenty local questions were provided by the TAMU-CC Staff Advisory Council to acquire information regarding timely issues on campus. The questions were designed within the parameters provided by the Institute of Organizational Excellence.

Responses are reported by Employment Category and Work Group. Mean score is reported, as well as charted in relation to the individual group responses. When possible, longitudinal data from local items in 2007 is provided.




performance



1. I am satisfied with the Employee Betterment Program for tuition assistance. (Mean: 360)

339353 350 344

332

356

391

360 355

323 325

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











1. I am satisfied with the Employee Betterment Program for tuition assistance. (Mean: 360)

400

347

390

313 31

8

363

338 34

5

394

360

325

321

369

340

358

361

388

342

300

325

350

400

386

385

373

460

367

317

340

411

357

308

391

450

336 34

2 350

350

325

270

380

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















2. My supervisor uses approved University policies and procedures when performing employee evaluations. (Mean: 402)

411 406 399417

268

330

423414

383

408

280

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











2. My supervisor uses approved University policies and procedures when performing employee evaluations. (Mean: 402)

429

380

373

440

415

460

400 41

5

407

411

400

347

413 42

9

431

406

380

350

273

367

433

400 41

3 423

413

440 45

7

353

442

425

389

379

421

443

390

381 38

9

367

320

373

450

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















3. It is clear to me that my adjustment in salary is directly related to my employee evaluation. (Mean: 346)

380

342329

377

290

200

300

400

500



2009 2009 Mean











3. It is clear to me that my adjustment in salary is directly related to my employee evaluation. (Mean: 346)

343

374

374

392 40

0

460

287

358

413

325

267

327

400

273

305

356

400

300

264

380

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















4. The complaint and grievance procedure is fair and equitable to all employees. (Mean: 351)

379

341351

338

268

333

398

354

330 327

291

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











4. The complaint and grievance procedure is fair and equitable to all employees. (Mean: 351)

414

306

356

390

333

411

300

383

336

363

386

271

345

371 38

1

341 35

0

315

273

350

367

340

366

368

365

400

429

250

382

414

350

279

350

425

333

320

390

350

340 344

400

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















5. The morale in my department is high. (Mean: 348)

377

343 342357

333

200

300

400

500



2009 2009 Mean











5. The morale in my department is high. (Mean: 348)

275

345

368

346

300

429

300

375

430

322

320

375

429

333

315

340

300

300

400

350

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















6. Teamwork is encouraged and practiced by my supervisor. (Mean: 381)

419

395384

363

300320

420

379 375 369

300

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











6. Teamwork is encouraged and practiced by my supervisor. (Mean: 381)

400

391

364

429

364

480

320

393

450

420

400

360

383

429

400

388

380

350

291

386

433

313

390

407

389 40

0

433

320

383

450

411

340

400

471

392

324

410

350

320

409

400

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















7. The University provides employees with the training necessary to perform their jobs effectively. (Mean: 369)

378363

378394

295

320

404

356

379

357

320

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











7. The University provides employees with the training necessary to perform their jobs effectively. (Mean: 369)

383

378

348

400

329

420

365

343

383

356 36

4

287

388

343

431

391

360

357

273

338 35

0

386

372 37

9

411

360

457

407

342

370 37

8

307

341

371

342

367

400

333 34

0

327 33

3

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















8. I am satisfied with the variety of training opportunities for

my professional development. (Mean: 362)

378

355 360378

295311

398

351367 371

318

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











8. I am satisfied with the variety of training opportunities for

my professional development. (Mean: 362)

343

371

368 38

4

293

430

363

314

367

300

364

280

394

350

425

376

356

323

250

350

300

300

374

350

411

320

443

393

391 40

0

333

273

365 37

1

333

371

370

333 34

0

364

283

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















9. I have a good understanding of the Employee Wellness Program. (Mean: 372)

355363

390

368

320340

395

364 370 371 370

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











9. I have a good understanding of the Employee Wellness Program. (Mean: 372)

317

350

372

403

325

380 38

9

379

344 36

0

380

293

322

383

360

406

350 36

4

345

375 38

3

367 37

9

356

412

360

400

386

373 38

0 388

300

300

414

345

390 40

0

400

380

330

433

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















10. I understand how my work directly contributes to the overall success of this University. (Mean: 429)

438421 421 421

395 390

478

429 424 431

375

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











10. I understand how my work directly contributes to the overall success of this University. (Mean: 429)

417

435 45

0

426

429

450

381

429

450

410

409

393

411

414

450

412

400

436

410

438

417

413

438 44

3

439

460

500

440

442

460

444

400

382

443

417 42

9

456

450

325

373

417

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















11. Employee performance evaluations are fair and appropriate. (Mean: 367)

367 363351 350

260

300

390376

346

369

291

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











11. Employee performance evaluations are fair and appropriate. (Mean: 367)

429

362

352

393

315

456

320

314

367

356 37

3

280

371

371 375

356

380

307

245

367 38

3

386

385 39

2

371

440

429

336

375

338

322

300

369

414

375

343

378

300

320

382

417

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















12. The employee performance evaluation helps me to improve my job. (Mean: 369)

379363

373 378

295

360

386368 369 367

310

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











12. The employee performance evaluation helps me to improve my job. (Mean: 369)

371

343

367 38

3

321

440

347

336

387

367

409

327

375

371

369 38

2

370 38

6

264

343

417

388

378 38

6

383

420 42

9

350

400

375

356

286

365

386

336

362

389

340

300

364

400

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















13. I have input in the evaluation of my administrator or supervisor. (Mean: 304)

325

296 290

324

232

311323

308

284

364

222

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











13. I have input in the evaluation of my administrator or supervisor. (Mean: 304)

267

294

320

300

277

356

253

257

333

288

400

227

307

371

338

280

330

300

236

317

300

229

300

348

309

400

450

321

358

313

229

286

269

343

340

247

289

250

200

291

360

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















14. The University administration should provide additional permanent funding to expand the Employee Wellness Program which

currently includes 20 employees a semester. (Mean: 403)

372

396412

376 376

350

411402 400

431

367

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











14. The University administration should provide additional permanent funding to expand the Employee Wellness Program which

currently includes 20 employees a semester. (Mean: 403)

367

357

418

417

385

367

389

343

441

344

410

386 40

0

400 40

7

426

400

369

367

386

383

380

381 39

3

450

380

467

413 417

411

389

379

382

414

409 41

5

410

380

375 38

9

433

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















15. My workload and job responsibilities are manageable. (Mean: 370)

363 364

386 379 380360360 363

397

357 360

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











15. My workload and job responsibilities are manageable. (Mean: 370)

300

374

356

381

371

400

385

336

378

340

382

367

394

300

363

391

390

414 418

325

350

250

346

400

386

340

386

413

367

400 41

1

347

412

371

392

352

390

340

375

364

283

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















16. My supervisor has clearly defined the role of my position and my performance expectations. (Mean: 376)

400

377392

379

305

350

402

373363

421

344

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











16. My supervisor has clearly defined the role of my position and my performance expectations. (Mean: 376)

329

370

371

419

329

450

353

407

383

370

391

347

376

400 40

6

391 40

0

400

291

363

400

313

372

397

389

440 45

7

340

382

400

344

347

375

443

358 36

7

440

320

300

391 40

0

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















17. Overall, I believe that the communication between management

and employees has improved over the last four years. (Mean: 344)

371

341355

300

264

200

300

400

500



2009 2009 Mean











17. Overall, I believe that the communication between management

and employees has improved over the last four years. (Mean: 344)

220

334

408

356

375

400

255

370

388

363

264

354

400

289

368

350

300

250

373

400

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















18. I am satisfied with the TAMU-CC smoke-free policy which prohibits smoking in University buildings, entryways, eating areas

and housing and designates. (Mean: 434)

438421

431

389

416

390

465

431416

450

420

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











18. I am satisfied with the TAMU-CC smoke-free policy which prohibits smoking in University buildings, entryways, eating areas

and housing and designates. (Mean: 434)

443

443 45

7

390

436 45

0

405

423

459

400

464

433

400

429 44

4

436

410

350

409

438

350

463

462

411

457

460

383 39

3

425

450

400

433

453

450

427

424 43

0

460

425

409

450

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















19. I am satisfied with the enforcement of the TAMU-CC smoke-free policy. (Mean: 383)

379392 392

347367 360

409

370 375

438

409

200

300

400

500



2007 2009 2009 Mean











19. I am satisfied with the enforcement of the TAMU-CC smoke-free policy. (Mean: 383)

417

405 41

1

340

423

380

290

393

393

380

464

400

344

400

425

416

360

338

409

350

317

463

397

396

350

420

414

371

373

413

400

367

387

417

373

376 39

0 400

400

282

417

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2007 2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















20. I understand the importance of the Staff Advisory Councilin representing my needs on the campus. (Mean: 363)

389

352

374385

278

200

300

400

500



2009 2009 Mean











20. I understand the importance of the Staff Advisory Council in representing my needs on the campus. (Mean: 363)

400

363 37

6

404

300

371

400

375 38

9

367

300

325

371

308

384 39

0

300

250

360

383

200

300

400

500

STIA

Exec

Enro

ll Se

rv

Dea

n-St

dnts

Ins A

dv

Cor

e

Libr

ary

Col

lege

LA

Col

lege

ED

Col

lege

BU

Col

lege

NH

S

Col

lege

ST

ST C

ente

rs

Out

reac

h

CM

S

Fisc

al

Uni

v Sv

cs

PP-S

uppo

rt

Polic

e

Ath

letic

s

HR

/EEO

2009 2009 Mean




•Dean of Students



•Library
















The End

For additional information, please contact

Katharine Mason in the Office of Planning and

Institutional Research at 825-2242

2009 survey of organizational excellence texas …...2009 survey of organizational excellence the...

Documents