July 15, 2004
Report Prepared by
Stephen John, Kelvin Sharp, Dick Walsh, Jack Wardlow
Survey designed by the Institutional Effectiveness Committee
and Administered March/April 2004
Introduction
The Employee Survey has been conducted biennially since 1994. Previous to the 2004 administration, the survey consisted of 50 statements. Respondents were asked to score the statements on a 1-5 scale of strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) with an option to indicate if the statement was not applicable (0). The survey was designed to measure the organizational climate of the college and employee satisfaction with a number of services (i.e., bookstore, inventory control, purchasing, etc.). Means were computed for the following subscales: constancy of purpose, employee empowerment, trust, external customer focus, cooperation and teamwork, internal customer focus, communication, and rewards and recognition. Respondents were grouped as faculty, classified, professional non-faculty and administration. The combined response for “All” employees was also computed as a weighted mean.
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee examined the structure and design of the Employee Survey in the fall of 2003. As a result, the survey was modified to more closely align the survey as a means for measuring employee response to the college’s seven “Commitment Statements” that form the organizational value system for the college. Some statements from the previous survey instrument were retained and other statements were developed and added. Those statements that measured employee satisfaction with particular internal services were omitted. The Institutional Effectiveness Committee will develop an Administrative Services Survey in the fall of 2004 to provide evaluation data on internal services for planning purposes.
The revised Employee Survey now consists of 53 statements that are designed to provide a quantitative means for examining the following organizational attributes of the college.
Student Focus
Learning Focus
Access and Diversity
Employee Focus
Employee Empowerment
Supervisory Management
Cooperation and Teamwork
Rewards and Recognition
Quality Work Environment
Organizational Communications
Internal Employee Relations
Physical Environment
Community Focus
Leadership Focus
Planning and Effectiveness
Leadership
Budgeting and Allocation of Resources
A list of survey statements organized according to these subscales is found in Attachment A.
Respondents were asked to respond to the statements on a 1-5 scale of strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Because the statements are drawn from the organizational values (commitment statements) of the college, an option to respond as “not-applicable” was omitted. For the first time, the survey was administered in a completely online format. Provisions were made to provide access to computers through the Human Resources Office for those employees without computing resources.
As in previous surveys, employees were given the opportunity to provide written responses to three questions: 1) List three things you would never want to change about SPC and/or your department; 2) List three things you would like to see improved or changed; 3) I wished you had asked about; I would have said.
Survey Administration and Response
The 2004 Employee Survey was administered online from March 23 to April 16. A total of 333 employees participated in the survey, representing 63.1% of the total college workforce of 528 employed in April 2004. This response rate was 10.7% less than the 373 respondents for the 2002 Employee Survey.
The percentage of respondents closely represent the different employee categories. Faculty (N=162) represented 48.6% of the respondents; classified personnel (N=76) 22.8%; professional non-faculty (N=67) 20.1%; and administrators (N=-22) 6.6%. Six employees chose not to indicate their employee classification.
Data Calculation and Results
Arithmetic means were calculated for each scaled statement. Statements left unanswered were not included in calculations. Additionally, for the first time, the degree of agreement with the statements was calculated as a percentage of the respondents selecting one of the scale choices: strongly agree, agree, neither agree/disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree.
Survey statements were worded such that lower means (disagree or strongly disagree) and the relative percentage of disagreement with the statement indicate areas where improvement is needed. The relative percentage of neutrality to a statement can also be interpreted as indicating areas for improvement. While neutrality does not indicate that an employee would tend to disagree with the statement, it also indicates that the employee has yet to form a favorable opinion about the statement.
The 53 questions have been categorized into seven subscales that represent the college’s organizational values and commitments. For the “All” category, a weighted mean score was calculated for each of the subscale areas. For individual employee groups, subscale means are calculated by averaging the arithmetic means of the statements that comprise that subscale.
Mean calculations for all statements and subscales can be found in Attachment B. Where applicable, results from the 2002 Employee Survey for identical and similar statements and subscales are provided. The degree of statement agreement calculated as a percentage of the respondents can be found in Attachment C and Attachment D.
Analysis of Data Results
Analysis of the means and response percentages provides an indication of the college’s organizational strengths and opportunities for improvement. For the purpose of this analysis, two benchmarks were applied to help identify strengths and weaknesses. A minimum statement and subscale mean was established at 3.50 and a minimum agreement percentage was established at 70%. Among all respondents, means for 46 of the 53 statements met or exceeded the 3.50 benchmark, and 38 of the statements met or exceeded the 70% agreement benchmark. Attachment E and Attachment F provide a listing of subscale areas and statements that do no reach these benchmarks. Applying these benchmarks to the data assists in understanding how well we are doing within each subscale area and where improvement is needed. A summary of subscale results are as follows.
Student Focus (M=4.37)
This area continues to be the college’s primary strength, exhibiting the highest subscale mean of 4.37. Employees believe students are the highest priority, SPC does a good job meeting student needs, and employees as a whole are committed to helping students. However, only 67.1% of classified personnel believed they are empowered to make decisions to help solve student problems. This response may indicate that classified personnel feel they do not have the authority to make decisions to solve student problems. Faculty had the highest level of agreement on making decisions to help students (84.5%). The overall mean for this subscale was 4.30 for the 2002 Employee Survey.
Learning Focus (M=4.29)
This subscale is new to the Employee Survey and is built on statements regarding educational quality, physical facilities for learning, curriculum and career preparation. Employees see the learning environment as another strength. This subscale had a composite score of 4.29. 98.5% of all respondents felt students receive a quality education at SPC. 83.7% of all respondents believe the physical facilities are conducive to effective learning. There is improvement in the overall mean for this statement compared to the responses for the 2002 survey. The 3.70 score for 2002 improved to 4.01 for 2004. 84.7% agreed the curriculum is updated effectively and equitably (M=4.09).
Access and Diversity (M=4.21)
This subscale scored a mean of 4.21, indicating another strength for the college. Employees indicate that a diverse multi-cultural environment is valued, the college programs and services are affordable, the educational program is available at convenient times and places, and admissions policies provide equal access to educational programs. Means for the four statements that comprise this subscale for all employee categories were greater than 4.0. The percent of agreement was greater than 78% for all sections within this subscale.
Employee Focus (M=3.99)
This subscale consists of 14 statements organized into four sub-categories: Employee Empowerment, Supervisory Management, Cooperation and Teamwork, and Rewards and Recognition. The overall subscale score for this area is 3.99 compared to 4.20 for the 2002 Employee Survey.
The sub-category Employee Empowerment scored a 3.98 mean. Greater than 90% of respondents believe their work gives them the ability to contribute to the success of SPC and more than 88% believe they have control over those aspects of their job for which they are accountable. However, less than 64% of classified personnel agreed that they are encouraged to develop creative and innovative ideas and that opportunities are provided for professional growth and development. 69% of faculty were satisfied with opportunities for professional growth with 16.5% disagreeing. Only 58.5% of all respondents agreed that support staff and instructional staff are treated fairly and equitably. This statement also received an overall mean of 3.48. Faculty scored this statement 3.25 and classified personnel 3.34. In view of written survey comments, salary, professional development travel, promotions and hiring procedures could be contributing to lower employee satisfaction in this area.
Employees are highly satisfied with Supervisory Management. This sub-category scored 4.22. There were high levels of agreement (greater than 80%) that immediate supervisors provide information necessary to do the job, are fair, communicate expectations, involve employees in decision-making, and give serious consideration to employee ideas. These responses indicate that the college’s supervisory management structure is an additional strength.
The Cooperation and Teamwork sub-category had an overall mean of 3.94 compared to 4.40 from the 2002 survey. Fewer respondents believed there is a spirit of cooperation and teamwork between departments and work groups. Only 60.7% agreed with the statement. Only 54.4% of faculty were in agreement. On the other hand, there was high agreement (88.8%) that people within a particular work group cooperate with each other to get the job done. This paradox has been observed in previous employee surveys.
For the Rewards and Recognition sub-category, there were similar responses. This area scored an overall mean of 3.53 compared to 3.70 for the 2002 survey. Only 54.3% of all respondents believe they are adequately rewarded and only 66.3% feel they are recognized for the work they do. There was even lesser agreement with the two statements among faculty (M=3.33) with 44.7% and 59.4% agreement, respectively. 38.6% of faculty and 28% of classified personnel do not believe they are adequately rewarded for their work. Written comments regarding salary, overload pay, budget cuts, professional development, facilities and equipment may explain the lower response in this area.
Quality Work Environment (M=3.98)
This subscale area consists of 10 statements organized into three sub-categories: Organizational Communications, Internal Employee Relations, and Physical Environment. The overall subscale mean for this area is 3.98. Within this subscale, employees overwhelmingly agreed that they are proud to work for SPC. This statement received an overall mean score of 4.67, slightly greater than the 2002 survey score of 4.60. There was greater than 90% agreement with this statement in all employee categories. Additionally, there was high agreement (greater than 75% in all categories) that individuals at SPC treat each other with respect and appreciation. There was also greater than 85% agreement in all categories that SPC provides a clean, safe and secure environment for employees and students.
Responses to statements regarding Organizational Communications showed a similar pattern to the responses to statements for Cooperation and Teamwork. The overall mean for the statement “Communication between departments at SPC is effective and adequate” was 3.52. Faculty scored this statement 3.25, classified personnel 3.38, professional non-faculty 3.36 and administrators 3.55. There was also lower agreement with this statement among all employee groups with only 49.2% of all respondents agreeing. Conversely, respondents indicated that there is good communication within departments and work groups. There was greater than 77% agreement with this statement in all categories and the overall mean for this statement was 4.15. There was also less agreement that SPC encourages an open exchange of ideas with only 62.7% of respondents in agreement. Only 55.3% of faculty agreed with this statement. Overall, the sub-category mean for this area was 3.69 compared to 3.70 for the 2002 survey.
For the sub-category Internal Employee Relations, there is high agreement that employees generally understand the needs and expectations of each other. 78.9% of respondents indicated that individuals with whom they interact understand their needs and expectation. 86.1% of respondents agreed that they individually understand the needs and expectation of those they work with. 79.6% of respondents agreed that employees treat each other with respect and appreciation. While more than 80% of classified personnel, professional non-faculty and administrators agreed that SPC values and cares about employees, only 66.5% of faculty agreed. The overall mean score for this category was 4.11, compared to 4.00 for the 2002 survey.
For the sub-category Physical Environment, 70.5% of the respondents indicated that physical facilities in their areas were adequate. There was less agreement among faculty with only 59.0% in agreement with the statement. 95.4% of respondents agreed that SPC provides a safe, clean and secure environment. Overall mean score for this sub-category was 4.11.
Community Focus (M=4.03)
The subscale mean score for this area was 4.03. 89.5% of respondents agreed that the college does a good job of responding to the needs of the communities we serve (M=4.27). 71.1% indicated that being involved in community service was an important part of their jobs (M=3.97). There was greater agreement among professional non-faculty and administrators to this statement (85.1% and 81.8% respectively) than among faculty and classified personnel (68.5% and 63.2%, respectively). Additionally, there was less agreement among employees that the college listens actively to the needs of community constituents (M=3.86). 69.0% of all respondents agreed with this statement; only 60.9% of faculty agreed.
Leadership Focus (M=3.66)
This subscale area consists of 14 statements organized into three sub-categories: Planning and Effectiveness, Leadership, and Budgeting and Allocation of Resources. Mean scores for 10 of the 14 statements exceeded the 3.50 benchmark, however, only six statements garnered greater than 70% agreement among all respondents. The overall mean score for this subscale was 3.66, the lowest of all subscale means. This would tend to identify this area and its sub-category components as opportunities for improvement.
For the sub-category Planning and Effectiveness (M=3.54), two statements drew less than 50% agreement among respondents. Only 49.8% of respondents agreed that they are asked for their ideas as the college plans for the future. 30% were neutral and 20.1% disagreed with the statement. Only 40.8% of respondents agreed that they were involved in SPC’s planning and effectiveness efforts. 38.4% were neutral and 20.7% disagreed with this statement. The least agreement for this statement was among classified personnel with 22.3%. 50% of classified personnel were neutral. The high percentages of neutrality would suggest that many employees are not actively involved in planning and effectiveness activities. Interestingly, 70.8% of the respondents indicated they are informed and understand the college’s planning and institutional effectiveness efforts. 67.1% indicated they know the parts of the Institutional plan that affects their work. The data would indicate that additional work is needed to inform and involve employees in the college’s planning and effectiveness processes.
The Leadership sub-category had a mean score of 3.79. For the most part, respondents agreed that they receive the administrative support necessary to do their jobs (76.8% agreement) and that those in leadership roles demonstrate a viable commitment to the institutional mission of the college (75.0% agreement). There was greater than 70% agreement among all respondents that college leaders use our vision and values to guide the school and that college leaders create and support a work environment that helps employees do their jobs. There was lesser agreement that top administrators are accessible and approachable (67.5%) and that employees have adequate communication with top administrative staff (58.3%), The lowest levels of agreement for the leadership statements were among faculty, ranging from 67.3% agreement for supportive work environment to 48.8% agreement for adequate communication with top administrative staff.
The Budgeting and Allocation of Resources sub-category had a mean score of 3.58. The majority of respondents, 79.8% agreed they have sufficient resources to do their job. However, there were mixed responses to levels of satisfaction with the budget process. Only 48.2% of respondents were satisfied with the budget process. 30.3% of faculty respondents indicated dissatisfaction with the process and 33.3% were undecided. Mean score for this statement was 3.34 compared to 3.50 from the 2002 survey. Additionally, only 50.1% of respondents believe the budget reflects institutional goals and objectives. 37.7% of faculty agreed, 38.9% were undecided and 23.4% disagreed with this statement. Mean score was 3.46 compared to 3.60 for 2002. Only 58.2% of respondents indicated they have opportunity to provide input to the budget process with 22.5% undecided. Classified personnel indicated only 28.9% agreement with this statement (M=3.00) with 42.1% undecided. The data would also suggest that additional work is needed to involve and inform employees about the budget process and its link to institutional planning and effectiveness.
Analysis of Written Comments
Employees were given the opportunity to respond to three open-ended questions designed to identify organizational strengths and weaknesses. A total of 257 employees (77.2%) responded to one or more of the three questions. Comments were grouped into common themes and were ranked according to frequency. The following provides a brief analysis of the comments for each question. These elements can be viewed as what is presently “most important” to employees within the college’s organizational climate.
Institutional Strengths
Employees were asked to list three things they would never want to change about SPC and/or their departments. A total of 234 respondents provided 595 comments to this questions. Attachment G provides a summary of 20 of the strongest elements identified by the respondents and also includes the actual comments sorted by common theme. The top 8 elements are discussed here.
1. Student focus (N=153; 65.4%): Dedication to students and remaining student-centered accounted for 25.7% of the comments in this area. This element was characterized by employees as putting students first, serving students, keeping students our number one priority, one-on-one attention, respect for students, helping students succeed, caring about students, ability to respond to student needs, and concern for students. Dedication to students was also the number one strength identified in the 2002 employee survey.
2. Work Environment (N=56; 23.9%): Comments regarding a supportive work environment accounted for 9.4% of the comments. The SPC work environment was characterized as being friendly, professional, collegial, relaxed, safe, secure, positive, fun, multi-cultural, honest, open, and cooperative. Employees don’t want to change the friendliness of those they work with at SPC.
3. SPC Family (N=35; 14.9%): Respondents also do not want to change the feeling of “family” on campus. This comment accounted 5.9% of the responses. This feeling is no doubt a product of the positive work environment and the friendliness of SPC employees in general. The fact that co-workers, supervisors and cooperation between departments is also highly regarded, as discussed below, would contribute to the sense of “family.”
4. Benefits (N=31; 13.2%): Benefits were noted in 5.2% of the responses. Frequently cited were health insurance (F=12), vacation days, work hours, and holidays.
5. Co-workers (N=28: 11.9%): Employees do not want to change the people they work with. Co-workers were cited 4.7% and were characterized as being supportive colleagues and close-knit groups. The comments indicated that there is high levels of cooperation and team work within departments and offices and that these working relationships are highly valued.
6. Supervisor (N=27; 11.5%): Equally important to respondents is their immediate supervisor and how that person directs their job (4.7% of responses). Supervisors were described as being respectful, flexible, willing to seek input, and fair-minded.
7. Departmental Cooperation (N=26; 11.1%): Teamwork between departments was identified as another strength for the college. This element appeared in 4.4% of the comments. Employees noted how well everyone works together when called upon, collaborative team efforts, helping each other with problem-solving, sharing of ideas, and the positive interaction between faculty and staff.
8. Faculty (N=24; 10.2%): The quality of the faculty was noted in 4.0% of the comments. Faculty were described as being dedicated, cooperative, talented, and great teachers. The college’s reputation for employing quality faculty members was cited as a strength for the college.
Opportunities for Improvement
Employees were asked to list three things they would like to see improved or changed. A total of 235 respondents provided 536 comments that were grouped into common themes. Attachment H provides a summary of 20 elements ranked by frequency and also includes the actual comments sorted by the identified common themes. The top 9 elements are discussed below.
1. Salary (N=114; 48.5%): Better salaries and pay were the most frequently cited items for improvement by respondents, accounting for 21.3% of the comments. Equity in salaries, merit raises, low entry-level pay, improved pay scales, salaries that reflect experience and degrees, increased pay for classified personnel, pay based on years of service, competitive faculty salaries, faculty overload and summer pay, and faculty pay commensurate with other quality community colleges characterized the comments made in this area. Faculty salaries were specifically cited in 41 of the 114 (35.9%) comments.
2. Facilities (N=57; 23.2%): Improvements to facilities was mentioned in 10.6% of the comments. The need for bigger facilities, more space, remodeling of space, better handicap access, and repair of mechanical systems was identified. Of particular note was the frequency of references to improving the HVAC systems in the older buildings at the SPC Reese Center.
3. Better Communication (N=47; 20.0%): While open communications was cited as a strength by some respondents (F=18), a greater number of respondents would like to see improvements in how the college community communicates (8.8% of comments). Better communication between campuses, between departments and offices, between administration and staff, and within departments were cited in the comments. Better access to information was also suggested.
4. Parking (N=29; 12.3%): Parking improvements appeared in 5.4% of the comments with reserved parking being suggested in a number of the comments. Availability of convenient parking spaces was also noted in this area.
5. Technology Improvements (N=23; 9.7%): Access to updated and improved technology comprised 4.3% of the comments. Issues with computing capacity, updated computers, virus protection, voice mail, CampusConnect, and improved instructional technology characterized the comments in this area.
6. Budget resources (N=16; 6.8%): Comments related to budget processes accounted for 3.0% of the comments. Increasing departmental budgets, better understanding of the process, and involvement in the budget process were some of the comments made by respondents.
7. Better cooperation (N=13; 5.5%): While also identified as a strength, better cooperation also appeared as an area for improvement in 2.4% of the comments. A stronger sense of cooperation between departments and improved relationships with faculty, staff and administration were mentioned. Improvements in communications will no doubt assist in improvements in cooperation and teamwork.
8. Professional development (N=13; 5.5%): Improved scheduling of faculty development, increased professional development opportunities for classified staff, and restoring professional development travel funds were the most often cited comments in this area.
9. Shared decision-making (N=13; 5.5%): Being involved in decision-making and making use of employee input characterize the comments for this area.
Open-ended comments
52 employees responded to the question: I wish you have asked about, and I would have said. Attachment I summarizes the responses which were also grouped according to common themes. Elements that drew at least three comments included the following: hiring and promotions, salary (F=11), survey construction, and technology.
Summary and Action Items
The organizational climate of the college is the product of the interactions and relationships among SPC employees who work together to accomplish our institutional mission and fulfill our vision of improving each student’s life. The results of the 2004 Employee Survey indicate that the current organizational climate is supportive of the college’s seven areas of commitment that form the college’s system of organizational values. These commitments are made to students, educational excellence, access and diversity, faculty and staff, a quality campus environment, the community, and to the effective use of resources. Respondents to the survey affirmed that they experience these core values, for the most part, in their day-to-day work at SPC.
The college’s commitment to students, to educational excellence and to access and diversity were identified as the organization’s greatest strengths. Employees highly value the college community’s dedication to student success and the friendly work environment that is characterized by a sense of family, supportive and cooperative co-workers, and competent supervisors. For the most part, employees feel empowered to do their jobs and indicate they are treated with respect, appreciation and fairness. The college continues to be focused on community and constituent needs.
In the past 18 months, SPC has had to deal with diminished budget resources that have resulted in a number of cost-cutting and revenue-building decisions. The last time SPC had to address budget challenges of this magnitude was in 1985 when state appropriations were reduced dramatically. As budget resources become more finite, the effective allocation of limited resources becomes a more critical concern, not only for planners but also for the college community as a whole. It is fair to suggest that for some, budget cuts become translated as lack of support and indifference to departmental priorities. In this context, survey respondents indicated a desire to be more involved in the planning and budgeting decisions and the prioritization of institutional initiatives.
By design, the Employee Survey identifies opportunities for improvement. Analysis of the data would suggest that there are six possible areas within our organizational culture that need to be addressed. These areas include the following action items.
Professional Development: The survey indicates that work should continue on expanding opportunities for professional development including restoring travel for professional development purposes. Leveraging the work of the Professional Development Committee, internal resources for professional development should be explored. The survey responses would also suggest that internal professional development training should focus on internal customer service, planning and effectiveness, teamwork building, and inter-departmental relations.
Rewards and Recognition: An overwhelming suggestion for improvement, employee rewards and recognition continues to emerge from these employee surveys as an important employee concern. Survey responses suggest a review of faculty overload pay, base salaries vs. percent raises, rank promotions, salary comparisons to other colleges in our region, and promotion and hiring practices. Salary equity is a concern among classified personnel.
Physical Facilities: The second most recommended item for improvement is facilities. The survey identified renovation and repair of HVAC systems in older Reese Buildings as a top priority. As the college continues to grow and expand, the questions of new vs. remodeling and who is next in line come front and center. While the majority of respondents indicate the physical facilities in their area are adequate, they also desire more opportunities for input when their areas are scheduled for remodeling and/or expansion.
Communication and Cooperation: These two functions within our organization go hand-in-hand in that one facilitates the other. While the survey results and comments do not provide any great insight into improving organizational communications and intradepartmental communications, respondents remind us that these are areas that require constant attention and improvement. The data suggests that there is a greater desire for more access to information, greater awareness of decision-making and more input into decisions. To improve in this area, we first need to identify the kinds of information people need and want. More internal training opportunities in organizational communications and internal customer service may be in order.
Planning and Effectiveness: While the college has made great strides prior to and following it’s Self-Study and SACS Peer Review Visit in the area of institutional effectiveness, it is clear that more work needs to be done. The Institutional Effectiveness Committee is working to help the college transition into a more user-friendly planning and effectiveness process, and progress has been made in this arena the past year. Even so, the survey indicates that more employee involvement in planning are greater awareness of the planning and effectiveness activities are needed. The IE Committee is poised to assist in this area.
Budget Process: While the majority of respondents indicate they have sufficient resources to do their jobs, the budget process emerges as another area for improvement. Survey responses do not pinpoint the exact cause of dissatisfaction, but suggest that consideration be given to creating greater involvement in and understanding of the budget process and the resource limitations the college faces.
In summary, SPC employees see South Plains College as a great place to work. Overwhelmingly, survey respondents believe they are contributing to the success of the college and indicate they are proud to work at SPC. It’s clear SPC employees are committed to working together to continue to make SPC a quality educational institution, while tackling the challenges that come with unprecedented growth.
Return to Survey Report Contents