Report Prepared by
Stephen John and Jack Wardlow

Survey designed by the Institutional Effectiveness Committee
and Administered March/April 2006

Introduction

The Institutional Effectiveness Committee examined the structure and design of the Employee Survey in the fall of 2003. Following this review, the survey was modified to measure 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 administrative support services were omitted and compiled into the Support Services Survey that was developed by the Institutional Effectiveness Committee.

The Employee Survey 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 the 17 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. 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 2006 Employee Survey was administered online from March 23 to April 16. A total of 311 employees participated in the survey, representing 55.3% of the total college workforce of 562 employed in April 2006. This response rate was 6.6% less than the 333 respondents for the 2004 Employee Survey, which represented 63.1% of the total college workforce.

The percentage of respondents closely represents the different employee categories. Faculty (N=156) represented 50.2% of the respondents; Classified personnel (N=66) 21.2%; Professional Non-Faculty (N=67) 21.5%; and Administrators (N=-17) 5.5%. Five 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 counted in calculations. Additionally, the degree of agreement with the statements was calculated as a percentage of the respondents selecting one of the scale choices: 5-strongly agree, 4-agree, 3-neither agree/disagree, 2-disagree, and 1-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 statements have been categorized into seven subscales that represent the college’s organizational values and commitments. Arithmetic means were calculated for each of the individual statements for each employee group and the “All” category. The greater the mean indicates a higher the level of agreement with the statement.

A weighted mean score was calculated for each subscale measure for individual employee groups and the “All” category. This mean was derived by calculating the value of all statement responses that comprise the subscale and dividing by total responses received for the group of statements. Higher subscale means would tend to indicate the college's organizational values and commitments are being practiced.

Mean calculations for all statements and subscales can be found in Attachment B.1.  Subscale means appear in bold face type. For comparative purposes, results from the 2004 Employee Survey are provided. The degree of statement agreement calculated as a percentage of the respondents can be found in Attachments C.1 and 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 the 17 subscale measures met or exceeded the 3.50 benchmark. Means for 50 of the 53 statements met or exceeded the 3.50 benchmark, and 39 of the statements met or exceeded the 70% agreement benchmark. Attachments B.2 and C.2 provide a summary 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 follows. Data comparisons between 2006 and 2004 can be found in Attachments B.1 and E.

Student Focus (M=4.36)

This area continues to be the college’s primary strength, exhibiting the highest subscale mean of 4.36. 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 68.2% of Classified personnel believed they are empowered to make decisions to help solve student problems, a slight improvement over 2004 survey agreement of 67.1% 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 (89.1%). The overall mean for this subscale was 4.37 for the 2004 Employee Survey.

Learning Focus (M=4.25)

This subscale 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 4.25, compared to 4.29 in the 2004 survey.  96.8% of all respondents felt students receive a quality education at SPC, a slight decrease in agreement from the 2004 survey, which scored 98.5%. 87.8% of all respondents believe the physical facilities are conducive to effective learning, an improvement of 4.1 percentage points from the 2004 survey. 79.6% agreed the curriculum is updated effectively and equitably (M=4.05), a decrease of 5.1 percentage points. Only 64.7% of Administrators agreed the curriculum is updated effectively and equitably, down from 86.4% agreement two years ago.

Access and Diversity (M=4.20)

This subscale scored a mean of 4.20, indicating another strength for the college. Employees indicate that a diverse multi-cultural environment is valued (91.8%), 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 75% for all sections within this subscale. However, there tended to be less agreement that programs and services are available at convenient times and places (81.3%) compared to two years ago (88.2%).

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, unchanged from the 2004 Employee Survey.

The sub-category Employee Empowerment scored a 4.00 mean. Greater than 95% of respondents believe their work gives them the ability to contribute to the success of SPC and more than 86% believe they have control over those aspects of their job for which they are accountable. However, Classified personnel feel less empowered than other employee groups. Only 63.1% agreed that they are encouraged to develop creative and innovative ideas, 69.7% agreed that opportunities are provided for professional growth and development, and 63.6% believe support staff are treated fairly and equitably.

76.3% of Faculty were satisfied with opportunities for professional growth, an improvement from the 69% agreement two years ago. Only 64.4% of All respondents agreed that support staff and instructional staff are treated fairly and equitably with 20% of respondents disagreeing.  21.9% of Faculty, 19.7% of Classified, 16.4% of Professional Non-Faculty and 23.5% of Administrators disagreed with this statement. The statement received an overall mean of 3.56. In view of written survey comments, salary, facilities, communications and managerial practices could be contributing to lower employee satisfaction in this area.

Employees are highly satisfied with Supervisory Management. This sub-category scored 4.20. There were high levels of agreement (greater than 81%) 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. While Professional Non-Faculty and Administrator respondents were in greater agreement with the five management statements than two years ago, Faculty and Classified respondents were in less agreement overall. While the overall change in agreement for All respondents is slight, a program of supervisor training may be a consideration to maintain this institutional strength.

The Cooperation and Teamwork sub-category had an overall mean of 3.89 compared to 3.94 from the 2004 survey. While a greater percentage of respondents believed there is a spirit of cooperation and teamwork between departments and work groups, only 62.9% agreed with the statement overall.  Only 59.7% of Faculty, 65.2% of Classified, and 56.3% of Administrators were in agreement. On the other hand, there was high agreement (87.7%) that people within a particular work group cooperate with each other to get the job done.  This paradox has been the prevailing pattern in previous employee surveys. The results may suggest that a program of supervisor training and emphasis on teamwork may need to be considered.

For the Rewards and Recognition sub-category, there were similar responses. This area scored an overall mean of 3.57 compared to 3.53 for the 2004 survey. Only 59.4% of all respondents believe they are adequately rewarded and only 68.8% feel they are recognized for the work they do. There was even lesser agreement with the two statements among Faculty (M=3.42) with 54.8% and 63.5% agreement, respectively. 30.3% of Faculty and 27.3% of Classified personnel do not believe they are adequately rewarded for their work.   Written comments regarding salary, overload pay, facilities and equipment may explain the lower response in this area.

Quality Work Environment (M=3.99)

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 3.99.  Within this subscale, employees overwhelmingly agreed that they are proud to work for SPC (94.8%). This statement received an overall mean score of 4.65, slightly lower than the 2004 survey score of 4.67. There was greater than 91% 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 93% 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 3.21, a decrease from the 3.32 rating two years ago.  Faculty, Classified personnel, and Professional Non-Faculty scored this statement 3.21, while Administrators scored it 3.24. For the first time, there was also lower agreement with this statement among all employee groups with only 46.8% of All respondents agreeing and 28.7% of respondents disagreeing. Conversely, respondents indicated that there is good communication within departments and work groups. There was greater than 72% agreement with this statement in all categories and the overall mean for this statement was 4.04.  There was also less agreement that SPC encourages an open exchange of ideas with only 64.6% of respondents in agreement. Only 61.3% of Faculty and 57.6% of Classified personnel agreed with this statement.  Overall, the sub-category mean for this area was 3.65 compared to 3.69 for the 2004 survey. The data would suggest that improvement of organizational communications, particularly inter-departmental communications, is in order.

For the sub-category Internal Employee Relations, there is high agreement that employees generally understand the needs and expectations of each other. 79.1% of respondents indicated that individuals with whom they interact understand their needs and expectation. 91.9%% of respondents agreed that they individually understand the needs and expectation of those they work with. 82.3% of respondents agreed that employees treat each other with respect and appreciation.  More than 77% of All respondents believe SPC values and cares for each individual employee. All employee categories exceeded the 70% agreement benchmark for this statement. The overall mean score for this category was 4.13, compared to 4.11 for the 2004 survey.

For the sub-category Physical Environment, 79.7% of the respondents indicated that physical facilities in their areas were adequate. There was greater agreement among Faculty (73.7%) to the statement than two years ago (59.0%). 95.5% of respondents agreed that SPC provides a safe, clean and secure environment. Overall mean score for this sub-category was 4.18, compared to 4.11 in 2004.

Community Focus (M=4.02)

            The subscale mean score for this area was 4.02. 91.0% of respondents agreed that the college does a good job of responding to the needs of the communities we serve (M=4.24). However, only 69.8% indicated that being involved in community service was an important part of their jobs (M=3.89). There was greater agreement among Professional Non-Faculty and Administrators to this statement (79.1% and 88.2% respectively) than among Faculty and Classified personnel (67.9% and 62.1%, respectively). Additionally, there was greater agreement among employees that the college listens actively to the needs of community constituents (M=3.93). 73.7% of all respondents agreed with this statement, compared to 69.0% two years ago. Only 66.2% of Faculty agreed, a 5.3 percentage point improvement over 2004 results.

Leadership Focus (M=3.79)

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 13 of the 14 statements meet or exceed the 3.50 benchmark, an improvement over the 2004 survey results when 10 of the 14 met the benchmark. However, only seven statements garnered greater than 70% agreement among All respondents. Three of these statements deal with planning and effectiveness and three concern budgeting and resource allocations. The overall mean score for this subscale was 3.79, compared to 3.66 in 2004.  While improvements have been made, this area and its sub-category components present opportunities for improvement.

For the sub-category Planning and Effectiveness (M=3.58), two statements drew less than 60% agreement among respondents. Only 58.9% of respondents agreed that they are asked for their ideas as the college plans for the future. 23.6% were neutral and 17.5% disagreed with the statement.  Only 45.6% of respondents agreed that they were involved in SPC’s planning and effectiveness efforts. 36.6% were neutral and 17.8% disagreed with this statement. The least agreement for this statement was among Classified personnel with 27.3%, while 47.0% 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, 72.6% of the respondents indicated they are informed and understand the college’s planning and institutional effectiveness efforts. But only 63.9% indicated they know the parts of the Institutional Plan that affect their work. The data would indicate that additional work is needed to inform and involve employees in the college’s planning and effectiveness processes. This involvement must be facilitated by supervisory personnel.

The Leadership sub-category had a mean score of 3.90, an improvement from 3.79 two years ago.  For the most part, respondents agreed that they receive the administrative support necessary to do their jobs (80.6% agreement, M=4.07) and that those in leadership roles demonstrate a viable commitment to the institutional mission of the college (81.6% agreement, M=4.04). There was 74.4% agreement among All respondents that college leaders use our vision and values to guide the school and 80.8% agreement that college leaders create and support a work environment that helps employees do their jobs. There was 78.7% agreement that top administrators are accessible and approachable (M=4.07), but only 65.8% agreement that employees have adequate communication with top administrative staff. The levels of agreement for the leadership statements improved among Faculty respondents. Only two leadership statements – use of vision and values (66.0%) and adequate communication with top administrators (61.9%) – failed to meet the 70% agreement benchmark for Faculty respondents. For 2004 survey, five of the six leadership statements did not reach the benchmark for Faculty respondents. Only 68.2% of Classified personnel agreed they have adequate communication with top administrators.

The Budgeting and Allocation of Resources sub-category had a mean score of 3.72, an improvement over the 2004 survey mean of 3.58. The majority of respondents, 84.6% agreed they have sufficient resources to do their job.  However, there were mixed responses to levels of satisfaction with the budget process.  Only 55.3% of respondents were satisfied with the budget process. 49.7% of Faculty respondents indicated satisfaction with the process and 32.9% were undecided. Mean score for this statement was 3.53 compared to 3.34 from the 2004 survey. Additionally, only 57.0% of respondents believe the budget reflects institutional goals and objectives. 52.6% of Faculty agreed, 39.6% were undecided and 7.8% disagreed with this statement. Mean score was 3.61, an improvement over the 3.46 for 2004. Only 60.3% of respondents indicated they have opportunity to provide input to the budget process with 25.5% undecided. Classified personnel indicated only 37.9% agreement with this statement (M=3.18) with 39.4% 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. This involvement must be facilitated by supervisory personnel.

Improvements and Set-backs

Comparing 2006 and 2004 data also provides a means in determining if improvements have been made in the past two years in measurement areas where either mean or agreement benchmarks were not met. Attachments B.3 and C.3 provide a summary of improvements and set-backs for means by employee groups and percentage agreement, respectively. Among subscale and statement means, improvement was seen in 15 measurement areas from 2004 to 2006, nine of which were Faculty measures. Faculty respondents affirmed fair and equitable treatment of employees, greater cooperation between departments and work groups, encouragement of an open exchange of ideas, provision for a clean, safe and secure work environment, leadership’s use of our vision and values as a guide, adequate communication with top administrative staff, and alignment of institutional goals and objectives with the budget. These survey statements failed to meet the 3.50 benchmark for the 2004 survey.

For All respondents, improvement was seen in four survey measures: fair and equitable treatment of employees, input of ideas into planning, satisfaction with budget process, and alignment of goals and objectives with the budget. The three set-backs involved Administrator measures: fair and equitable treatment of employees, cooperation between departments and inter-departmental communications. The Administrator mean for cooperation between departments fell from 4.09 to 3.44.

Improvement was made in 14 measurement areas meeting the 70% agreement benchmark. Seven Faculty measures improved to the 70% benchmark, including greater agreement that professional development opportunities are provided, that the college cares and values me as an employee, that facilities are adequate, that Faculty are informed and understand SPC’s planning and institutional effectiveness efforts, that college leaders demonstrate a commitment to the college’s mission, that top administrators are accessible and approachable, and that leadership creates and maintains a supportive work environment.  Respondents identified as Professional Non-Faculty, had greater agreement that employees are treated fairly and equitably, that there is a spirit of cooperation between departments and work groups, that they are adequately rewarded for the work they do, and that goals and objectives are reflected in the budget. Among All respondents, greater than 70% agreement was achieved on the following measures: college listens actively to the needs of community constituents and top administrators are accessible and approachable.

Set-backs in percentage agreement were seen in nine measurement areas, five of which involved Administrator measures: college curriculum is updated effectively and equitably, opportunity for professional development are provided, spirit of cooperation between departments, adequate rewards for work done, and goals and objectives are reflected in the budget. Classified personnel had less than 70% agreement that they are recognized for the work they do and that they are informed and understand planning and institutional effectiveness efforts. Professional Non-Faculty had less than 70% agreement that they know the parts of the Institutional Plan that affect their work.  Among All respondents, there was less than 70% agreement that being involved in service to the community is an important part of their job.

The tables that follow chart improvements in terms to total subscale and survey statement means meeting or exceeding the 3.50 benchmark and survey statements meeting or exceeding the 70% agreement benchmark. Percentage improvements were achieved for All respondents, Faculty and Professional Non-Faculty employees. The subscales and survey statements not meeting the benchmarks tend to focus on these areas: adequate rewards for work, communications, employee empowerment, cooperation and teamwork, planning and effectiveness and the budget process.

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 215 employees (71.7%) responded to one or more of the three comment 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 189 respondents provided 439 comments, compared to 234 respondents providing 595 comments in the 2004 survey. Attachment F.1 provides a summary of 19 of the strongest elements identified by the respondents. Attachment F.2 provides a comparison with the comment categories from the 2004 survey. The top nine elements (greater than 10% respondent frequency) are discussed here.

1.  Student focus:  Dedication to students and remaining student-centered was listed by 52.4% of employees responding to this section (N=99). One in five of all “do not change” comments cited the college’s student focus as a strength. 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 2004 employee survey, with a 65.4% respondent frequency.

2.  Work Environment: Comments regarding a supportive work environment was cited by 22.2% of respondents (N=42). The SPC work environment was characterized as being friendly, professional, informal, close, comfortable, pleasant, positive, fun, honest, open, and cooperative. Employees don’t want to change the friendliness of those they work with at SPC. Work environment was also cited as the No. 2 strength in the 2004 survey.

3.  Leadership: Supervisory and administrative leadership was mentioned by 19.6% of respondents (N=37). The college’s leadership is described as being approachable, open, interested, supportive, progressive, and accessible. Respondents indicated the one thing they don’t want to change is “my boss.” Leadership was also listed as the third-ranked strength in the 2004 survey with an 18.3% respondent frequency.

4.  Benefits:  Benefits were noted 16.9% of respondents (N=32). Frequently cited were health insurance, vacation days, work hours, and holidays.  Benefits were cited by 13.2% of respondents in 2004.

5.  Employee Support: Comments pertaining to employee support were listed by 16.9% of respondents (N=32). Employees appreciate commitment to each other, mentoring, respect and understanding, openness to new ideas, ability to grow in a job, honesty and integrity, standards of excellence, opportunity to provide input, and freedom to voice opinions. This element experienced a greater frequency of comment than in the 2004 survey where it was mentioned by only 5.5% of the respondents, ranking this element 17th.

6.  Mission: 15.3% of respondents (N=29) stated SPC should not change its mission to provide an accessible and quality learning environment. The comments were characterized as commitment to serving a rural area, commitment to communities, reputation for excellence, maintaining a diverse student body, and “passion for what we do.” Comments regarding mission were written by only 5.5% of respondents in the 2004 survey, ranking this element 18th.

7.  Co-workers:  Employees do not want to change the people they work with. Co-workers were cited by 14.8% of respondents (N=28) 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. Co-workers are characterized as being professional, friendly, receptive, helpful, , talented and skilled. Co-workers were mentioned by 11.8% of respondents in the 2004 survey.

8.  SPC Family: Respondents also do not want to change the feeling of “family” on campus. This comment was cited by 14.3% of respondents (N=27).  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.”

9. Educational Program: The quality of the educational program was noted by 10.6% of respondents. N=20). Transferability of courses, program quality, quality instructors, low student-teacher rations, and a good learning environment characterized the comments. This element was cited by 5.5% of respondents in 2004 and was ranked 16th.

Academic freedom, class size, facilities, cooperation, resources, and open communication are additional elements that received greater than 5% frequency by respondents.

Opportunities for  Improvement

Employees were asked to list three things they would like to see improved or changed.  A total of 181 respondents (58.2%) provided 390 comments that were grouped into common themes. This compares to 235 respondents providing 536 comments in the 2004 survey. Attachment G.1 provides a summary of 20 elements ranked by respondent frequency. Attachment G.2 provides comparative data with the 2004 survey. Only four elements received greater than 10% respondent frequency. The top nine elements are discussed below.

1.  Salary:  Better salaries and pay were the most frequently cited items for improvement by 36.5% of respondents (N=66). This compares to 48.5% of respondents (N=114) who cited better salaries in the 2004 survey. Merit raises, published salary ranges, competitive salaries, salaries commensurate with education, classified personnel salaries, faculty overload pay, faculty summer pay, and faculty salaries competitive with other community colleges characterized the comments made in this area. Faculty salaries were specifically cited in 23 of the 66 (34.8%) comments.

2.  Facilities: Improvements to facilities was mentioned by 28.7% of respondents (N=52). For the 2004 survey, this element was cited by 23.2% of respondents (N=57) The need for bigger facilities, more space, remodeling of space, better handicap access, repair of mechanical systems and cleanliness of facilities was identified. Of particular note was the frequency of references to expanding teaching facilities for nursing and improving facilities at the Reese Center.

3.  Better Communication:  While open communications was cited as a strength by some respondents (5.3%, N=10), 22.7% of respondents would like to see improvements in how the college community communicates (N=41). The 2004 survey generated 47 comments from 20.0% of respondents. Better communication between campuses, between departments and offices, between administration and staff, and within departments were cited in the comments. Better access to information and better knowledge of campus activities were also suggested.

4.  Leadership: Similarly, supervisory and administrative leadership were listed as an institutional strength by 19.6% of respondents in this survey. However, 11.6% of respondents (N=21) also listed leadership as an area for change and improvement. Willingness to consider different points of view, favoritism, seeking employee input, positive reinforcement from supervisors, and administrative access characterized the comments in this section.  In 2004, 12.3% of respondents listed supervisory and administrative leadership as an area for improvement.

5.  Employment Policies: Improvements to employment policies were suggested by 8.8% of respondents (N=16). Changing the practice of internal promotions, advertising vacancies, opportunities to apply for open positions, improvements in human resources policies, gender equity, and standardizing hiring practices, are some of the suggestions. This element was noted by 4.7% of respondents in the 2004 survey, ranking it 12th.

6.  Better Staffing:  Staffing changes were recommended by 8.8% of respondents (N=16). Most of the comments dealt with hiring additional faculty and staff to reduce current workloads. More help for chairpersons was a common response. This element did not appear in the top 20 areas for improvement in the 2004 survey.

7.  Class Schedule: Improving the scheduling of classes was suggested by 7.2% of respondents (N=13). Offering more classes at the Reese Center, changing to M-R schedule at Reese, and addressing non-traditional student needs dominated the comments. Class schedule comments were made by 4.7% of respondents in 2004, ranking it 10th in frequency.

8.  Technology Improvements: Access to updated and improved technology was recorded by 7.2% of respondents (N=13). Issues with computing capacity, updated computer resources, CampusConnect, and improved instructional technology characterized the comments in this area. Technology comments had a 9.7% respondent frequency in 2004.

9. Educational program: Improvements to various aspects of the educational program were recommended by 5.5% of respondents (N=10). Expanding educational opportunities, strengthening academic expectation, enriching the curriculum and emphasizing traditional educational standards were suggested.  Comments regarding the educational program did not appear in the top 20 recommendations in the 2004 survey.

Other elements for improvement include better budget resources, better employee support, improved parking, improved benefits and improved student services. Parking improvements were cited by only 5% of respondents, compared to 12.3% of respondents in 2004. Additionally, improved professional development opportunities was ranked 19th, compared to an 8th place ranking in 2004.

Open-ended comments

45 employees responded to the question:  I wish you have asked about, and I would have said.  Comments regarding salary were submitted by 24.4% of respondents (N=11). Elements receiving three or more comments include the following: benefits (3), communication (4), employee pride (3), faculty (3), and leadership (4).

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 2006 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, to access and diversity and the community 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 and administrators. 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.  However, a lesser percentage of employees feel community service is an important part of their job than in previous surveys.

While budget resources have improved over the past 24 months, the pressure to effectively allocate limited future resources remains a critical concern, not only for planners but also for the college community as a whole. It is fair to suggest that for some, budget restraints 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. Attention to a greater level of involvement will led to greater satisfaction with the budget process.

Additionally, as the college grows and expands, organizational communication becomes more critical. Respondents expressed a concern for inter-departmental communications, rating this factor below the 3.50 mean benchmark and 70% agreement benchmark in all employee categories. Employees, for the most part, believe effective communications channels exist within departments. Communication between departments is viewed as less than adequate.

By design, the Employee Survey identifies opportunities for improvement. Analysis of the data would suggest that there are five possible areas within our organizational culture that need to be addressed. These areas include the following action items.

Rewards and Recognition: A primary suggestion for improvement, employee rewards and recognition continues to emerge from the Employee Survey as an important employee concern. While most employee concerns revolve around salary, just as important is recognition for work done. Steps have been taken in the past 24 months to increase faculty overload pay and to ensure cost of living percentage increases of 5% in FY 2005, 5% in FY2006 and 4% in FY2007. 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 continues to be a concern among Classified personnel.

Physical facilities:  The second most recommended item for improvement is facilities. The survey identified renovation and repair of older Reese Buildings and expansion of instructional facilities for the nursing program as a top priority among some respondents.  As the college continues to grow and expand, the questions of new versus 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 inter-departmental 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 make it conveniently available when they want it. More internal training opportunities in organizational communications and internal customer service may be in order, especially for supervisory personnel.

Planning and Effectiveness: While the college has made great strides prior to and following it’s 2001 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 in the past three years. Even so, the survey indicates that more employee involvement in planning and greater awareness of planning and effectiveness activities are needed. Engaging employees in planning and effectiveness is a function of supervisory and administrative leadership, and the data indicate work is needed 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. Again, this involvement must be facilitated by supervisory personnel.

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