COACHE: Tenure-Track Faculty Job Satisfaction SurveyConducted by the Harvard Graduate School of Education: The Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education

Office of Institutional ResearchResearch Series Fall 2006

Theoretical frameworkSociological/generational theoryGeneration-XBorn between 1965-1980SkepticalBelieve parents suffered from VDD-

vacation deficit disorderWilling to work hard but wants to

decide when, where and how

Generational comparisonTRADITIONALIST

(1900-1945)

BOOMER

(1946-1964)

GEN-X

(1965-1980)

Chain of command Chain of commandSelf-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 can’t believe the nerve of those X’ers. They want

it all.

I’ll 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?

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

COACHE themesImportance and effectiveness of

policiesTenure clarity and reasonableness of

expectationsWork load and environmentClimate, culture collegiality and supportGlobal satisfaction

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

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%

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

CLIMATE, CULTURE AND COLLEGIALITY

QUESTIONS RELATED TO CLIMATE,

CULTURE AND COLLEGIALITY

COMPARED TO PEER

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

NATURE OF WORK

QUESTIONS RELATED TO NATURE OF WORKOverall 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

TENURE

QUESTIONS RELATED TO TENUREPEER COMPARISON

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

POLICIES AND PRACTICES

QUESTIONS RELATED TO POLICIES AND PRACTICES

PEER COMPARISON

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

GLOBAL SATISFACTION

PEER COMPARISON

Overall Male Female Color White

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

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

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

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 faculty3.37 (3.62) 3.28 (3.67) 3.53 (3.56)

3.71 (4.07)

3.26 (3.37)

GLOBAL SATISFACTION

Top five best and worst aspects about working at UNCW

My sense of fit here, 32%

Geographic location, 41%

Commute, 11%Support of colleagues, 12%

Quality of colleagues, 17%

Compensation, 26%

Quality of undergraduates, 14%

Teaching load, 11%

Diversity, 11%

Lack of support for research, 19%

Best and Worst across UNC

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)

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)

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?