Posted 5/13/16
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE MEETING 7 – 2015-2016
MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, April 21, 2016
1:15 PM – 2:45 PM
Trustee’s Board Room, Irving Presidential Enclave
AGENDA
OUTCOMES
♦ Reflection, with Senators, President & Provost, on 2015-2016 Academic Year
♦ Senate Comment/Approval on New Associate Dean, Research Policies, Process for Next
Steps on Resolution
♦ Recommendation on ad hoc vs. Standing Committee for Tenure Promotion & Appointment
♦ Priorities of Unfinished and New Business for Next Year
1:15 – 1:45 PM
• Welcome
• Remarks from the Chair & Council
o Senate Council Meetings with President & Provost
o Nomination & Election Process (May 5-12)
o Review/Affirm Associate Dean for Research at the Heller School (Attached & Circulated
in Advance)
o Review and Comment on New Research Policies (Attached and Circulated in Advance)
o Review new information on ad hoc vs Standing Committee for Tenure Appointment and
Promotion Cases
o Process for Resolution Adoption (“Broken Trust & Lost Contribution to Faculty and Staff
Retirement Funds”)
o Conditions at IBS
1:45 – 2:15 PM
• Presentation & Discussion
o Guest: Kim Godsoe – Report Staff Work-Life Survey
o Priorities for Unfinished and New Business for Next Year
Page 1 of 5
Posted 5/13/16
2:15 – 2:45 PM
• Invited: Interim President & Provost Share Reflections on Year
2:45 PM
• Adjourn to Lurias, Hassenfeld Conference Center for Reception & Proclamation –
Open to All Faculty by Invitation, Co-Sponsored by the Office of the Provost and the Faculty
Senate
ATTACHMENTS
1. Senate Resolution to Express Consensus on the Matter of Broken Trust and Lost
Contribution to Faculty and Staff Retirement Funds and Faculty Comments
2. Correspondence Regarding New Associate Dean of Research, Heller
3. Proposed Research Policies and Correspondence
4. Staff Work-Life Survey Report & Summary of Results
5. Follow-up Data on Tenure Promotion & Appointment, 4.14.16
PRESENT: Susan P. Curnan, Chair, Dan Bergstresser, Joe Cunningham, Elizabeth Ferry, William
Flesch, Kathryn Graddy, Adrianne Krstansky, Sarah Mead, Thomas Pochapsky, Jeffrey Prottas, John
Wardle
ABSENT: Eli Hirsch, Paul Miller, Susan Parish, Laurence Simon (Ulka Anjaria on leave 2015-2016,
Joseph Wardwell on leave spring 2016)
GUEST: Kim Godsoe (Associate Provost for Academic Affairs)
Remarks from the Chair
• The Chair reported that monthly Senate Council meetings with President Lynch and
Provost Epstein covered many topics. The President and Provost indicated that student
stress has become a top concern on campus. Another concern is the work load of faculty
and staff. The meetings will continue as the new University Administration begins.
• The Chair said that the Senate Nomination deadline is at 5pm this date, April 21st, and
many nominations have been submitted. The Senate Council will contact nominees in
the coming weeks to confirm participation.
•
•
The Chair asked for affirmation or any objections to the proposed appointment of Cindy
Thomas as Associate Dean for Research at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management.
It is “a changing of the guards” from Prof. Susan Parish, who has been in the position. The Chair
reported that Senator Jeff Prottas as well as Senator Parish have closely reviewed the proposed
appointment and are in agreement that Prof Thomas is qualified to be the new Associate Dean.
There were no exceptions among Senators in endorsing Cindy Thomas.
The Chair asked for affirmation or any objections to the proposed research policies provided by
Ed Hackett in the Provost’s Office. Senators who are involved in research carried the
discussion. Only one comment emerged and that is with regard to “automatic PIs” – beyond
Page 2 of 5
Posted 5/13/16
•
faculty and scientists this should include Fellows, a title used at Heller. The Chair will signal this
request to Associate Provost Hackett.
John Wardle provided a report and data on the “Ad hoc vs Standing Committee for Tenure
Appointments and Promotions” discussion with the Office of the Dean of Arts & Sciences.
o As reported and discussed in previous meetings, the data on University practices
supports moving to a standing committee. The Dean’s office reviewed universities
similar to Brandeis as well as Ivy League Universities for comparison. The review
indicated that the great majority of the universities use standing committees, with the
exception of special situations that were advisory to the University President.
o Prof. Wardle said that out of 137 appointment reviews in Brandeis A&S between 20042015, there were only 7 times that the ad hoc committee disagreed with a standing
committee.
o Given the lack of consensus on this matter among senators, Prof. Wardle proposed
bringing a vote to the Senate and to the Brandeis Faculty to establish a requirement for
standing committees for promotion to full professors (no ad hoc committee
requirement).
o Senators discussed some concerns and disagreed about whether or not to bring a
proposal to the full faculty.
 One Senator said that several Faculty members in Humanities were vehemently
against omitting ad hoc committees for tenure and promotion reviews.
 One Senator clarified that the proposal is just for the School of Arts & Sciences.
 A Senator said that eliminating an ad hoc committee requirement is because it’s
a hassle administratively/workload consideration.
 A Senator said that the outside participants who write letters are considered the
“real experts”.
 Senators discussed the influence of letter writers and the importance of
compensation ($1,000 for their time).
 A Senator said that it was critical to have “outside” people (non-Brandeis) as
part of the process because they add perspective.
 Another Senator described the value added by an “outside” expert is to educate
the participating deans, who learn about different disciplines, and an
opportunity for faculty to meet and have intellectual discussions and build a
network with experts beyond Brandeis.
 One Senator asked if there is some way to divide the proposal to better address
objections or move forward by blending options.
 One Senator suggested removing appointments to Associate Professor or
automatically elevating a faculty member after a certain number of years.
o The Chair suggested that a “hybrid” approach, i.e., a standing committee with the option
of the candidate asking for an outside review, seems to be emerging and the discussion
should continue when more time is available. The Chair then tabled the discussion to
another time.
Page 3 of 5
Posted 5/13/16
Presentation & Discussion
Guest: Kim Godsoe – Report Staff Work-Life Survey
• Kim Godsoe presented summary findings from the Staff Work-Life Survey. The response rate
was close to 70% and many respondents expressed thanks for the opportunity to participate.
• Kim Godsoe said that staff expressed feelings of community, loyalty to Brandeis and a strong
affiliation with their department. Many cited salary and workload as top source of stress.
• Kim Godsoe said that more than 45% of respondents indicated they are likely to leave the
university in the next three years (this is even with consideration of the fact that a large
percentage of Brandeis employees are retirement eligible in the same timeframe). (Report
attached) Discussion ensued.
• One Senator said that the word “staff” doesn’t adequately cover everything that an employee in
that position does and might benefit from a language change.
• One Senator suggested starting a “Staff Senate”, or some kind of representative body similar to
the Faculty Senate.
• Another Senator suggested having the two staff members who receive the annual University
awards be invited to participate in University Commencement proceedings, including the
dinner, walking with the procession at sitting on the Commencement stage for the ceremony.
• Kim Godsoe reported that staff expressed interest in more funding for professional
development and opportunities for career advancement. A Senator suggested that the matter
might be one the newly appointed Human Resources VP should address.
• Senators reported that Human Resources is putting together a program on internal mobility to
review, noting that the staff to student ratio is lowly rated at Brandeis, e.g., a large number of
students per Professor.
• In response to a prompting question by the Chair, the Senate Administrator, Lanni Isenberg,
said that a Staff Senate is an appealing idea because it would be a helpful way to collaborate,
address systems maintenance and improvement, and learn about the broader University
community.
• One member suggested renaming the Peter French Garden to something honoring staff – or
perhaps using funds from the proposed benefits compensation reimbursement to repurpose
that space.
Process for Resolution Adoption (“Broken Trust & Lost Contribution to Faculty and Staff
Retirement Funds”)
• The Chair suggested tabling feedback on the resolution until the subcommittee of Senators has
an opportunity to incorporate the fine suggestions from the full faculty discussion.
• The Chair and resolution subcommittee will redraft based on comments/feedback and confer
with other faculty who submitted comments about it.
IBS Conditions
• Senator Katy Graddy described some concerns at the International Business School (IBS)
regarding personnel roles and leadership and asked for guidance from the Senate.
• Some of the concerns may be addressed with new policies and procedures currently under
review. A confidential discussion among Senators followed.
Page 4 of 5
Posted 5/13/16
Other Business
• Senator Jeff Prottas had to leave the meeting early for an appointment, and indicated that this is
his final Senate meeting. Senators expressed gratitude for his work and incisive analysis of
issues, and, in particular, the opportunity to get to know Prof. Prottas.
• One Senator described a recent issue with the Registrar’s Office changing long-standing grades
from “excused incomplete” to “f” without notice or consideration of the Professor who taught
the course. The Senate agreed this was inappropriate as described and will look into it.
• According to one Senator, the CFRR said that, as a rule, incompletes should not linger on a
student’s record, but that the Registrar should not be in the business of assigning grades.
The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. to celebrate Faculty, President and Provost.
Respectfully submitted on April 27, 2016 by Lanni Isenberg.
Page 5 of 5
Lanni Isenberg <harris@brandeis.edu>
INFORMATIONAL: Results of Staff Work-Life Survey
1 message
Office of the Provost <provost@brandeis.edu>
Reply-To: Office of the Provost <provost@brandeis.edu>
To: Brandeis Staff and Faculty <broadcast-email@lists.brandeis.edu>
Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:45 AM
Dear Brandeis Staff and Faculty,
We are pleased to share with you the results from last year’s Brandeis Staff Work-Life
Survey. The high response rate of 69.4 percent shows how deeply we all care about our
work here. We are very grateful to the staff members who gave their time,
thoughtfulness and candor in the service of making Brandeis a workplace that allows
employees to flourish while contributing their very best to our shared
educational mission.
The survey report provides important data for understanding staff experiences at
Brandeis, and can be found at http://www.brandeis.edu/humanresources/.
A few key highlights include:
• Overall, staff respondents expressed strong levels of satisfaction with their experiences
at Brandeis and their life outside of Brandeis.
• Respondents felt a strong sense of community, particularly in their departments. Most
had good relationships with their supervisors and colleagues.
• If given a chance to decide all over again whether to be a Brandeis employee, about
75 percent of respondents said they would choose to be one again.
• Areas of concern for respondents included workloads and salaries.
The survey will offer university administrators and the Office of Human Resources useful
information as they strive to make Brandeis an even better and more productive place to
work.
We want to thank the Office of Planning and Institutional Research and the Staff
Excellence Group, including Sherri Avery, Lori Dougherty, Kim Godsoe, Kate Goldfield,
Deborah Jenkins, Jessica Maryott, Linda Purrini, Courtney Sampson, Susanne Shavelson
and Barbara Wrightson, for their work on this survey.
If you have any questions or suggestions related to the report, please contact Kim
Godsoe, associate provost for academic affairs, at godsoe@brandeis.edu.
Sincerely,
Irv Epstein
Interim Provost
Steve Manos
Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Staff Work Life Survey
The Staff Work-Life Survey, administered in April 2015, was developed by the Office of the
Provost with input from the Staff Excellence Group and the Office of Planning and Institutional
Research. The survey was conducted in order to learn more about Brandeis staff members’
perceptions and experiences with regard to issues affecting work-life balance and satisfaction
with work.
The survey was sent to all Brandeis staff who worked at least 17.5 hours per week as of June 17,
2015 (1,193 people). Of staff to whom the survey was sent, 69.4% (829), responded. Of the
respondents, 796 staff members, or 96.0%, took the survey in English, and 33, or 4.0%, took the
survey in Spanish.
This report provides an overview of the results. For each question or set of questions, the report
indicates: the number of respondents; the percent of respondents who chose each response; and,
if applicable, the average response. Statistically significant differences are reported by gender
identity (with respondents who indicated “transgender” or “other” grouped to protect
confidentiality), as well as by race, ethnicity and citizenship status. When small groups exist,
confidentiality can be compromised because individuals can become identifiable and their
responses to survey items can be deduced. Because the “American Indian/Alaska Native” and
the “Two or More Races” categories had fewer than five respondents each, they are omitted from
this report in order to protect confidentiality.
Executive Summary
• Overall, Brandeis employee respondents expressed strong levels of satisfaction with their
experiences at Brandeis and their life outside Brandeis.
• Staff respondents felt a strong sense of community, particularly in their departments.
Most had good relationships with their supervisors and colleagues.
• Areas of concern for staff respondents included workloads and salaries.
• Some respondents have felt a lack of respect from other community members (such as
faculty or students) because of their status as staff.
• A significant minority of staff respondents indicated that they are somewhat or very
likely to leave Brandeis in the next three years. This is similar to the findings from the
faculty survey.
• If given a chance to decide all over again whether to be an employee at Brandeis, about
75% said they would choose to come again.
Overall Satisfaction
Respondents were asked about their satisfaction with work, life outside of work, and the balance
between the two. Approximately 83.3% of staff respondents indicated that they were either very
or somewhat satisfied with being at Brandeis. When asked about life outside of Brandeis, 92.9%
of respondents said that they were very or somewhat satisfied. When asked about work –life
balance, 77.0% of respondents said they were very or somewhat satisfied. Survey results were
analyzed for statistical significance based on gender identity as well as race, ethnicity and
international status. Table 1 shows overall satisfaction rates, with a response of 5 being very
satisfied and a response of 1 being very dissatisfied.
Table 1: Overall Satisfaction Rates
How satisfied
are you being
at Brandeis?
How satisfied
are you with
your life outside
of Brandeis?
How satisfied
are you with the
balance
between your
work at
Brandeis and
your life outside
of Brandeis?
Number
Responding
Average
Response
Very
Satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Neither
Satisfied or
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
761
4.07
36.4%
46.9%
6.3%
8.1%
2.2%
758
4.42
54.3%
38.6%
3.0%
3.3%
0.8%
758
3.97
38.6%
38.4%
7.4%
12.5%
3.0%
Gender: In overall levels of satisfaction, one area was statistically significant based on gender
identity. Female respondents (mean 4.47) were more satisfied than male respondents (mean
4.22) with life outside of Brandeis. There were no statistically significant differences for staff
who identified as Trans/Other.
Race, Ethnicity and International Status: There were no statistically significant differences
between white staff respondents when compared to respondents who identified as Asian, black or
African-American, Hispanic or Latino, Native American or Alaska Native, two or more races, or
as international (non-resident alien).
2
Satisfaction with Different Aspects of Brandeis
The survey asked about the degree to which staff were satisfied with different aspects of working
at Brandeis. The responses can be grouped in three tiers. In the top tier, benefits and the physical
campus environment received the highest rates of satisfaction from respondents. 83.3% of
respondents said they were very or somewhat satisfied with benefits, and 71.9% of respondents
said they were very or somewhat satisfied with the physical campus environment. In the middle
tier, most staff member respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with physical workspace
(63.8%); space for meetings, conferences and other collaborative activities (60.1%); salary
(58.6%); parking (54.6%); and professional development opportunities (54.2%). The lowest tier
of satisfaction for staff respondents was dining, with 33.3% of respondents being very or
somewhat satisfied. Table 2 shows satisfaction with different aspects of Brandeis using the same
5-point satisfaction scale as in the previous section with 5 being very satisfied and 1 being very
dissatisfied.
Table 2: Satisfaction by Area
Benefits
Physical campus
environment
Physical workspace
Parking
Space for meetings,
conferences, and
other collaborative
activities
Professional
development
opportunities
Salary
Dining
Number
Responding
Average
Response
Very
Satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Neither
Satisfied or
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
694
4.20
45.8%
37.5%
6.8%
7.1%
1.7%
744
3.90
32.3%
39.6%
14.6%
8.9%
3.3%
741
3.64
30.6%
32.2%
12.1%
17.5%
6.4%
697
3.52
28.1%
26.5%
12.0%
17.8%
8.3%
730
3.54
22.4%
37.7%
14.1%
16.0%
6.9%
729
3.49
21.5%
32.7%
22.0%
14.0%
6.9%
720
3.37
19.2%
39.4%
11.1%
19.3%
10.8%
680
2.98
9.2%
24.1%
23.5%
23.6%
10.6%
For each question, responses of “Not Applicable” are not listed. The sum of percentages may not equal 100% because “Not
Applicable” responses are not listed. In most cases, “Not Applicable” responses accounted for less than 3%. However, for dining 9%
of respondents responded “Not Applicable,” and for parking, 7.3% of respondents responded “Not Applicable.”
3
Gender: There were no statistically significant differences based on gender identity for most
aspects of working at Brandeis including salary, benefits and professional development
opportunities. Female respondents (3.99) were more satisfied than male respondents (3.73) with
the physical campus environment.
Race, Ethnicity and International Status: There were no statistically significant differences
between white staff respondents when compared to respondents who identified as Asian, black or
African-American, Hispanic or Latino, or as international (non-resident alien).
Workload
Staff respondents indicated a heavy workload. 41.8% describe their workload as too heavy or
much too heavy. Almost half of respondents, or 46.6%, said they work on average more than 40
hours per week, and 17% said they work more than 50 hours per week. Table 4 shows how
respondents described the intensity of their workload, and table 5 shows the number of hours
worked.
Table 4: Intensity of Workload
Overall, how would
you rate your
workload?
Number of
Respondents
Average
Response
Much Too
Heavy
Too Heavy
About
Right
Too Light
Much Too
Light
681
3.45
10.6%
31.2%
55.0%
2.5%
0.7%
Table 5: Number of Hours Worked in a Typical Work Week
Hours
17.5-20
14
21-25
22
26-30
9
31-35
95
36-40
236
40-49
209
More than 50
119
2.0 %
3.1%
1.3%
13.5%
33.5%
29.6%
17.0%
Brandeis remains a traditional work environment: most staff respondents work set hours in a
specific physical location. However, 74.7% of respondents said their supervisors are open to a
flexible work arrangement. Many respondents regularly work from home before and/or after
regular business hours, as well as on weekends. Most respondents do not work on their vacations
or during their commutes. Table 6 provides an overview of work habits.
4
Table 6: Work Habits
It is important to my department that I am physically in my office or lab
My supervisor is open to flexible work arrangements
I regularly work from home before and/or after regular business hours
I regularly work on weekends
I regularly work on vacation
I set my own hours
I regularly work on my commute
I regularly work from home during business hours
Number of
Respondents
691
682
706
700
692
689
695
695
Yes
78.4%
74.7%
60.4%
45.0%
36.1%
35.2%
14.9%
13.0%
No
21.6%
25.3%
39.6%
55.0%
63.9%
64.8%
85.1%
87.0%
Gender: Male respondents (26.0%) were more likely than female respondents (13.3%) to say
they work “More than 50 hours.” Male respondents were also more likely to describe differences
in work patterns: 58% of male respondents compared to 39% of female respondents agreed with
the statement “I regularly work on weekends”; 45% of male respondents compared to 32% of
female respondents agreed with the statement “I set my own hours”; 83% of male respondents
compared to 70% of female respondents agreed with the statement “My supervisor is open to
flexible work arrangements.” All of these results were statistically significant. There were no
statistically significant differences for Trans/Other respondents.
Race, Ethnicity and International Status: There were no statistically significant differences
between white staff respondents when compared to respondents who identified as Asian, black or
African-American, Hispanic or Latino, or as international (non-resident alien).
Quality of the Brandeis Work Experience
94% of staff respondents agree or strongly agree that they are confident in their ability to do their
job well. In general, staff respondents agree or strongly agree with statements about being
positively challenged by work (77.2%), having the opportunity to do their professional best
(76.2%); and having a physical work environment conducive to work (67.7%). For each of these
questions, only 12.4% to 15.3% of staff respondents disagree or strongly disagree with the
statements.
Three questions had strong levels of agreement but also larger levels of disagreement. When
asked about having resources to do their job well, 65.6% of staff respondents agree or strongly
agree that they had the necessary resources, while 22.6% disagree or strongly disagree that they
do. When asked about feeling recognized for the work they do, 63.7% of staff respondents agree
or strongly agree that they feel recognized, while 23.8% disagree or strongly disagree that they
feel recognized. When asked about serving on important departmental committees, 47.7% of
staff respondents agree or strongly agree that they had this opportunity, while 21.8% disagree or
strongly disagree.
5
Three questions had responses which were evenly distributed throughout the three categories of
agree or strongly agree, neither agree nor disagree, and disagree or strongly disagree were very
similar. 37.2% of staff respondents agree or strongly agree that hard work is the best way to
advance at Brandeis, while 29.5% disagree or strongly disagree. 34.4% of staff respondents
agree or strongly agree that they have career advancement opportunities at Brandeis, while
39.6% disagree or strongly disagree. 31.8% of staff respondents agree or strongly agree that they
had to work harder than their colleagues to be taken seriously, while 33.6% disagree or strongly
disagree. Table 7 shows the quality of the Brandeis work experience, and the scale used was 5
for “Strongly Agree” and 1 for “Strongly Disagree.”
Table 7: Quality of the Brandeis Work Experience
Number of
Respondents
Average
Response
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
agree
nor
disagree
I am confident in my ability to
do my job well
706
4.64
70.1%
23.9%
3.5%
1.1%
0.4%
I am positively challenged by
the work I perform
706
3.97
34.8%
42.4%
10.3%
9.1%
3.3%
689
3.83
32.6%
35.0%
14.6%
11.5%
3.8%
709
3.92
31.7%
44.5%
10.3%
9.7%
3.5%
707
3.61
29.4%
34.3%
12.1%
15.0%
8.8%
702
3.60
23.1%
42.5%
10.6%
15.4%
7.2%
607
3.42
20.9%
26.8%
17.9%
12.0%
9.8%
686
3.12
14.7%
22.5%
29.6%
15.6%
13.9%
666
2.86
12.9%
18.9%
29.3%
12.2%
21.4%
676
2.88
11.8%
22.6%
22.3%
22.0%
17.6%
I have a physical work
environment that is conducive
to the work that I do
I have the opportunity to do
what I professionally do best
every day
I regularly feel recognized for
the work I do
I have the resources
(equipment, training, budget,
etc.) I need to do my job well
I am given the opportunity to
serve on important committees
within my department/unit
Hard work and dedication is
the best way to advance at
Brandeis
I have to work harder than
some of my colleagues to be
taken seriously
I have career advancement
opportunities within Brandeis
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Percentages may not equal 100%. For each question, responses of “Not Applicable” are not listed.
Gender: There were no statistically significant differences by gender identity for questions about
the quality of the Brandeis work experience.
6
Race, Ethnicity and International Status: Hispanic/Latino respondents (3.64) were more likely
than white respondents (2.73) to agree with the statement “I have to work harder than some of
my colleagues to be taken seriously.” Hispanic/Latino respondents (3.90) were also more likely
than white respondents (3.07) to agree with the statement “Hard work and dedication is the best
way to advance at Brandeis.” There were no other statistically significant results for this section
by race, ethnicity, or international status.
Work within the Department/Unit
Staff respondents report a strong loyalty to their department, with 94.8% agreeing or strongly
agreeing that they are willing to go beyond normal work duties to help their department succeed.
Staff respondents also reported that their colleagues are committed to doing quality work
(87.6%); their department is a good fit (85.4%); their opinions matter to their immediate
supervisor (82.4%); the mission of the department makes their job feel important (82.3%); their
opinions matter in the department (81.2%); and that they can raise personal/family
responsibilities when scheduling obligations (76.9%). Each of these statements had some staff
respondents who disagree or strongly disagree, but this ranged from 5.5% to 9.3% of
respondents.
Other statements had lower levels of agreement by respondents. These include their opinions
mattering to their department supervisor (69.2%); having colleagues in the department who are
personal friends (66.6%); being included in informal networks in the department (62.0%), having
a community that encourages professional development (61.7%); and the department’s
procedures being fair to all (58.8%). Each of these statements had some staff respondents (13.5%
to 20.7%) who disagree or strongly disagree with these statements.
Outside of their units, staff respondents are less likely to report strong connections. 56.5% of
staff respondents agree or strongly agree that their opinions and well-being mattered to
colleagues outside of their department. 52.7% of staff respondents agree or strongly agree that
they had personal friends outside of the department. 25.8% of staff respondents said their
opinions and well-being matter and are important at the highest levels of the university. Table 8
shows work within the department, and the scale used was 5 for “Strongly Agree” and 1 for
“Strongly Disagree.”
7
Table 8: Work within the Department
I am willing to go beyond my
normal work duties to help my
department succeed
My fellow employees are
committed to doing quality
work
My opinions and well-being
matter and are important to my
immediate supervisor
My department is a good fit for
me
The mission/purpose of my
department makes me feel my
job is important
My opinions and well-being
matter and are important to my
colleagues within my
department
My department is a place
where I can comfortably raise
personal and/or family
responsibilities when
scheduling obligations
My opinions and well-being
matter and are important to my
department supervisor
I have colleagues in my
department who are my
personal friends
I have a community in my
department that encourages
my professional development
My department’s procedures
are fair and equitable to all
I feel included in informal
networks in my department
I have colleagues outside my
department who are my
personal friends
My opinions and well-being
matter and are important to my
colleagues outside my
department
My opinions and well-being
matter and are important at the
highest level of the university
Number of
respondents
Average
response
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
agree
nor
disagree
710
4.64
71.0%
23.8%
3.4%
0.8%
0.7%
707
4.42
60.5%
27.1%
6.2%
4.2%
1.4%
703
4.27
57.8%
24.6%
7.5%
4.4%
4.9%
708
4.33
54.9%
30.5%
8.9%
3.8%
1.7%
708
4.24
51.7%
30.6%
9.7%
4.9%
2.7%
708
4.19
50.1%
31.1%
8.6%
5.9%
3.7%
666
4.22
49.9%
27.0%
8.6%
5.1%
3.4%
672
3.96
42.1%
27.1%
12.5%
6.8%
6.7%
685
3.82
32.2%
34.4%
16.7%
9.3%
5.0%
692
3.65
27.8%
33.9%
17.6%
12.1%
6.7%
683
3.58
26.5%
32.3%
18.4%
12.5%
8.2%
686
3.67
25.5%
36.5%
19.2%
10.8%
5.6%
666
3.47
25.2%
27.5%
18.8%
12.4%
10.8%
669
3.65
21.9%
34.2%
25.2%
9.6%
3.5%
681
2.78
7.7%
18.1%
33.7%
20.1%
17.2%
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Percentages may not equal 100%. For each question, not applicable answers are not listed.
8
Gender: Only one area for work within the department or unit was statistically significant.
Female respondents (3.57) were more likely than male respondents (3.23) to agree with the
statement “I have colleagues outside my department who are my personal friends.”
Race, Ethnicity and International Status: A number of statistically significant differences
occurred between international and white respondents for these questions. International
respondents (3.42) were less likely than white respondents (4.25) to agree with the statement
“My opinions and well-being matter and are important to by colleagues within my department.”
Similarly, International respondents (2.82) were less likely than white respondents (3.67) to
agree with the statement “My opinions and well-being matter and are important to by colleagues
outside my department.” International respondents (3.25) were also less likely than white
respondents (4.26) to agree with the statement “My department is a place where I can
comfortably raise personal and/or family responsibilities when scheduling obligations.” There
were also statistically significant differences between international respondents (3.94), when
compared to white respondents (4.67), black or African American respondents (4.85), and AsianAmerican respondents (4.73) for the statement “I am willing to go beyond my normal work
duties to help my department succeed.”
Supervision and Professional Development
Staff respondents reported generally favorable relationships with their supervisors. 81.0% of
staff respondents agree or strongly agree that their supervisor values their opinion, and 79.4% of
staff respondents agree or strongly agree that their supervisor cares about them as a person. Other
areas of supervision showed more mixed results. The majority of staff respondents agree or
strongly agree that their supervisor creates a collegial environment (72%); effectively
communicates job responsibilities (70.5%); informs the unit about matters affecting us (70.3%);
includes staff in the planning process (65.9%); regularly provides feedback (64.7%). For these
areas, the percent of staff respondents that disagree or strongly disagree ranged from 13.8% to
19.7%. Staff member respondents were less likely to feel that their supervisor communicates a
clear vision of the department’s future direction: 64.6% of staff respondents agree or strongly
agree with this statement while 23% disagree or strongly disagree with this statement. Table 9
shows statements about supervision, and the scale used was 5 for “Strongly Agree” and 1 for
“Strongly Disagree.”
9
Table 9: Supervision
Number of
Respondents
Average
response
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
agree
nor
disagree
My supervisor seems to
care about me as a person
701
4.30
59.0%
20.4%
10.5%
4.5%
4.7%
My supervisor values my
opinion
705
4.25
53.6%
27.4%
7.4%
6.2%
4.8%
700
4.08
49.2%
22.8%
12.6%
8.6%
6.4%
697
4.08
47.3%
24.0%
13.8%
8.4%
5.4%
680
3.95
40.9%
26.0%
14.0%
9.3%
6.6%
699
3.95
40.1%
30.4%
9.9%
11.8%
6.8%
699
3.94
39.7%
30.6%
10.3%
12.0%
6.7%
687
3.84
37.0%
28.9%
13.0%
11.7%
7.4%
691
3.79
35.7%
29.0%
14.0%
13.1%
6.6%
698
3.73
32.8%
31.8%
11.3%
13.8%
9.2%
My supervisor creates a
collegial and supportive
environment
My supervisor encourages
professional development
The person to who my
supervisor reports
understands and values the
work of the department
My supervisor effectively
communicates my job
responsibilities
My supervisor does a good
job of keeping my unit
informed about matters
affecting us
My supervisor includes me
in the performing planning
process
My supervisor regularly
provides me with feedback
My supervisor
communicates a clear
vision of our department’s
future direction
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Approximately half (53.2%) of staff respondents feel that their workload allows time for
professional development, while approximately one-third (29.2%) do not feel like they have time
for professional development. When asked about the opportunity to attend professional
conferences, 61.7% of staff respondents agree or strongly agree with the statement that they had
the opportunity to attend a professional conference within the last year, compared to 19.0% who
disagree or strongly disagree. Table 10 provides an overview of respondents’ professional
development, and the scale used was 5 for “Strongly Agree” and 1 for “Strongly Disagree.”
.
10
Table 10: Professional Development
I have had the opportunity
to attend professional
conferences directly or
indirectly related to my
professional field within
the last year
My workload allows me
time to continue to
develop myself
professionally
Agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
42.1%
19.6%
8.5%
5.5%
13.5%
22.3%
30.9%
14.2%
18.2%
11.0%
Number of
respondents
Average
Response
Strongly
Agree
630
3.80
681
3.37
Percentages may not equal 100%. For each question, not applicable answers are not listed.
Staff members were also asked about written performance reviews and other feedback from
supervisors. Only 54.1% of respondents said they had received a written performance review in
the last 24 months. 26.9% of staff respondents described the review as very helpful; 55.8%
described it as somewhat helpful; and 17.3% described it as not helpful at all. When asked if
staff respondents receive regular feedback in a timely manner from their supervisor, 66.7%
responded yes, while 33.3% responded no.
Gender: There were no statistically significant differences by gender identity for questions about
supervision and professional development.
Race, Ethnicity and International Status: There were no statistically significant differences
between white staff respondents when compared to respondents who identified as Asian, black or
African-American, Hispanic or Latino, or as international (non-resident alien).
Diversity
74.6% of staff respondents agree or strongly agree that diversity is valued at the university.
78.3% of staff respondents agree or strongly agree that opportunities for female staff are
equitable to opportunities for male staff. In contrast, 64.8% of respondents agree or strongly
agree that opportunities for minority staff are equal to opportunities for non-minority staff. Table
11 provides an overview of respondents’ perception of diversity and discrimination at Brandeis,
with a 5-point agreement scale where 5 is strongly agree and 1 is strongly disagree.
11
Table 11: Diversity and Discrimination at Brandeis
Diversity is important and
valued within Brandeis
I feel that the climate and
opportunities for female staff in
my department are at least as
good as those for male staff
I feel that the climate and
opportunities for minority staff
in my department are at least
as good as those for nonminority staff
I have experienced
discrimination at Brandeis
because of my sex
I have experienced
discrimination at Brandeis
because of my race/ethnicity
I have experienced
discrimination at Brandeis
because of my religion
I have experienced
discrimination at Brandeis
because of my sexual
orientation
I have experienced
discrimination at Brandeis
because of having a disability
Agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
35.3%
39.7%
14.8%
8.6%
1.6%
4.25
56.6%
24.0%
10.8%
4.9%
3.7%
601
4.03
44.9%
27.3%
16.8%
8.2%
2.8%
607
1.69
2.8%
8.9%
10.9%
9.4%
68.0%
562
1.29
0.5%
3.2%
6.4%
4.4%
85.4%
564
1.36
1.1%
4.1%
7.4%
5.0%
82.4%
539
1.22
0.2%
0.9%
6.7%
4.8%
87.4%
393
1.27
0.8%
1.0%
7.6%
5.3%
85.2%
Number of
respondents
Average
response
Strongly
Agree
675
3.98
655
12
I have experienced
discrimination at Brandeis
because of having young
children
I have experienced
discrimination at Brandeis
because of having to provide
care for someone who is ill,
disabled, aging, and/or in need
of special services
Agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
0.2%
7.1%
10.4%
7.8%
74.4%
0.7%
2.6%
7.8%
4.8%
84.1%
Number of
respondents
Average
response
Strongly
Agree
422
1.51
421
1.31
Percentages may not equal 100%. For each question, not applicable answers are not listed.
Respondents were asked if they had felt that they weren’t respected by faculty, students or other
members of the community because they were staff. 42.9% staff member respondents agree or
strongly agree with this statement, 13.6% staff member respondents neither agree nor disagree,
and 40.1% disagree or strongly disagree with this statement. Table 12 provides an overview of
these responses, again using a five-point scale.
Table 12: Respect and Status as Staff
I have experienced feelings
of being not respected by
other members of the
community because I am
staff
These types of interactions
happen frequently
Agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
16.5%
27.9%
14.0%
10.1%
31.6%
8.1%
15.1%
18.3%
19.4%
39.1%
Number of
respondents
Average
response
Strongly
Agree
656
2.88
568
2.34
Percentages may not equal 100%. For each question, not applicable answers are not listed.
Gender: Female respondents (4.19) were less likely than male respondents (4.43) were to agree
with the statement “I feel that the climate and opportunities for female staff in my department are
at least as good as those for male staff.” Female respondents (1.79) were more likely than male
respondents (1.41) to agree with the statement “I have experienced discrimination at Brandeis
because of my sex.” Female respondents (1.61) were more likely than male respondents (1.22) to
agree with the statement “I have experienced discrimination at Brandeis because of having
young children.” Trans/other respondents (1.86) were more likely than female respondents (1.20)
and male respondents (1.25) to agree with the statement “I have experienced discrimination at
Brandeis because of my sexual orientation.”
13
Race, Ethnicity and International Status: There were no statistically significant differences
between white staff respondents when compared to respondents who identified as black or
African-American. Asian-American respondents (1.95), Hispanic/Latino respondents (1.92), and
international respondents (1.86) were more likely than white respondents (1.18) to agree with the
statement “I have experienced discrimination at Brandeis because of my race/ethnicity.” There
were no other statistically significant differences for these questions.
Causes of Stress—Work
Workload again emerged as an important theme in questions about causes of stress in the work
environment. 37.3% of respondents said they very often or often felt overwhelmed by all they
had to do in their work, while 54.1% said they occasionally felt stressed, and 8.6% said they
never felt stressed. Table 13 summarizes these results.
Table 13: Feelings of Being Overwhelmed by Work
During the past year, how
often have you felt
overwhelmed by all you had
to do in your work?
Number of
respondents
Average
response
Very
Often
Often
Occasionally
Never
671
2.44
15.4%
21.9%
54.1%
8.6%
Staff members were asked to indicate which aspects of work had been a source of stress, and
whether the stress level was extensive, somewhat or not at all. 67.2% of staff respondents said
they experienced some level of stress because workload demands meant they could not perform
at their best. Similarly, 62.6% of respondents said they experienced some level of stress because
there was a lack of time to think about how to improve their areas of responsibility. Other areas
in which staff respondents reported experiencing significant levels of stress included
departmental or campus politics (60.5%); unrealistic expectations about the amount of work that
can be completed (58.3%); and undefined job expectations (57.4%).
Brandeis also had a number of strengths in this area. In general, staff respondents do not
experience stress because of a lack of community at work, a culture in which mistakes will not
be tolerated, or the timing of departmental meetings and functions. Table 14 shows sources of
work stress using a three point scale with 3 indicating extensive levels of stress and 1 indicating
no stress. Respondents could also select not applicable.
14
Table 14: Source of Work Stress
Number of
Respondents
Average
Response
Extensive
Somewhat
Not at All
Lack of time to think about how to
improve my areas of responsibility
643
185
20.3%
42.3%
34.4%
Departmental or campus politics
626
1.85
19.5%
41.0%
34.2%
Unrealistic expectations about the
amount of work that can be completed
649
1.78
17.5%
40.8%
39.6%
Workload demands mean I can’t
perform at my best
658
1.84
16.1%
51.1%
31.5%
Confusing or contradictory messages
about what my department should be
accomplishing
626
1.67
14.4%
34.6%
45.7%
Uncertain or undefined job expectations
642
1.73
13.6%
43.8%
39.3%
Lack of time for friends and family
because of work obligations
643
1.56
11.1%
32.9%
53.9%
Lack of community at work
635
1.42
8.0%
24.6%
63.2%
652
1.44
7.7%
28.4%
62.3%
603
1.36
3.2%
27.1%
62.0%
Extremely high expectations for
performance (mistakes won’t be
tolerated)
Timing of departmental meetings and
functions
Gender: Female respondents (2.51) were more likely to agree than male respondents (2.22) to
agree with the question “During the past year, how often have you felt overwhelmed by all you
had to do in your work?” Female respondents (1.88) were more likely than male respondents
(1.73) to indicate “workload demands that mean I can’t perform at my best.” There were no
statistically significant results for Trans/Other respondents.
Race, Ethnicity and International Status: There were no statistically significant differences
between white staff respondents when compared to respondents who identified as Asian, black or
African-American, Hispanic or Latino, or as international (non-resident alien).
Causes of Stress—Life
Staff members were asked to indicate which aspects of life outside Brandeis that had been a
source of stress. Again, staff respondents had four choices to describe the degree to which they
experienced stress: extensive, somewhat, not at all or not applicable. The main cause of stress
outside of work was the cost of living, with 78.5% of staff respondents indicating that this caused
them some level of stress. Other areas that caused stress were their managing household
responsibilities (66.1%); the inability to pursue outside interests (59.5%), and their commute
(56.1%).
15
Some areas had a large number of respondents indicate that the question was not applicable to
their circumstances. These include childcare and providing care for someone who is ill, disabled,
aging or in need of specials services. Therefore the percentages below underrepresent the amount
of stress for individuals who do have children or who are caring for someone who is in need of
support. Table 15 shows external sources of stress, using a three-point scale where 3 indicates an
extensive source of stress and 1 indicates no stress. Respondents could also select not applicable.
Table 15: External Sources of Stress
Number of
Respondents
Average
Response
Extensive
Somewhat
Not at All
645
636
627
2.12
1.82
1.77
31.8%
23.2%
46.7%
32.9%
19.6%
40.2%
14.1%
45.4%
36.7%
645
286
627
1.82
1.74
1.60
14.0%
11.5%
8.3%
52.1%
9.3%
40.7%
32.0%
22.6%
46.9%
317
1.64
7.1%
16.1%
24.4%
1.51
1.55
1.50
1.35
5.9%
5.8%
5.6%
30.5%
10.0%
10.9%
Relationship with friends
551
258
291
617
3.2%
26.3%
47.3%
23.8%
27.5%
64.7%
Relationship with children
394
1.41
2.4%
19.6%
37.7%
Cost of living
Commute
Inability to pursue outside interests
and avocations
Managing household responsibilities
Cost of childcare
Your health
Providing care for someone who is
ill, disabled, aging or in need of
special services
Relationship with spouse or partner
After-school care for children
Finding suitable childcare
Percentages may not equal 100%. For each question, not applicable answers are not listed.
Human Resources
Human Resources included questions about the degree to which employees were familiar with
and/or had used campus resources. Almost all staff respondents were familiar with Human
Resources and the Benefits Office. Staff respondents were more aware of the Wellness Program
and Brandeis Tuition Remission and less aware of the Brandeis Employee Assistance Program
and of training and professional development opportunities. Table 15 shows awareness of
different Human Resources programs.
16
Table 15: Awareness of Human Resources Programs
Number of
Respondents
Not aware
of resource
Aware of
resource,
did not use
resource
Aware of
resource,
used
resource
Brandeis Wellness Program
669
9.10%
59.80%
31.10%
Brandeis Training and Professional Development
Brandeis Tuition Assistance
Brandeis Benefits Office
Brandeis Human Resources
Employee Assistance Program
669
667
664
670
669
17.90%
7.00%
6.60%
2.80%
23.90%
49.00%
67.30%
33.90%
30.40%
63.70%
33.00%
25.60%
59.50%
66.70%
12.40%
Percentages may not equal 100%. For each question, not applicable answers are not listed.
HR also included questions in the survey about employees’ knowledge of what to do in cases of
misconduct and the complaint resolution process. Employee respondents are more aware of the
resources available for addressing misconduct than the resources available for complaint
resolution/the grievance process. Table 16 shows awareness of the complaint procedures.
Table 16: Awareness of Complaint Procedures
How aware are you of the complaint
resolution/grievance procedures
available to you at Brandeis?
If you experience or learn about any
kind of misconduct (ethical, harassment,
etc.), how aware are you of the
resources available to you to address
the misconduct?
Number of
Respondents
Average
Response
Not at
all
aware
Somewhat
aware
Very
aware
674
1.72
38.6%
50.9%
10.5%
671
2.08
15.6%
60.4%
24.0%
Percentages may not equal 100%. For each question, not applicable answers are not listed.
Gender: Female respondents were more likely than male respondents to have used different
training programs. 34.6% of female versus 22.0% of male respondents used the Brandeis
Wellness Program; 35.9% of female versus 25.8% of male respondents used the Brandeis
Training and Professional Development program; and 62.9% of female versus 52.5% of male
respondents used the Brandeis Benefits Office.
Race, Ethnicity and International Status: International (52.6%) and Hispanic/Latino respondents
(21.9%) were more likely than white respondents (6.5%) to say they were unaware of the
Brandeis Wellness Program. Similarly, international respondents (73.7%) were more likely than
Hispanic/Latino (31.3%), Asian-American (20.0%), Black or African American (7.7%), and
white respondents (14.3%) to say they were unaware of Brandeis Training and Professional
17
Development programs. Three other areas were statistically significant between international and
white respondents. International respondents compared to white respondents were unaware of
Brandeis Tuition Assistance (52.6% and 4.3% respectively), unaware of the Brandeis Benefits
Office (26.3% and 5.7% respectively), and unaware of the Employee Assistance Program (57.9%
and 21.9% respectively).
Staying at or Leaving Brandeis
Staff members were asked whether they were planning to leave the institution in the next three
years. 46.1% of staff respondents responded that they were somewhat likely or very likely to
leave. Staff members were also asked about receiving formal outside job offers. 28.9% of
respondents had received job offers. Table 17 provides an overview of respondents’ likelihood of
leaving Brandeis, and Table 18 provides a summary of outside job offers.
Table 17: Likelihood of Leaving Brandeis
In the next three
years, how likely are
you to leave
Brandeis, including
retirement?
Number of
respondents
Average
response
Very
Likely
Somewhat
Likely
Neither
Likely nor
unlikely
Somewhat
unlikely
Very
unlikely
662
2.79
23.1%
23.3%
21.0%
16.5%
16.2%
Table 18: Outside Job Offers
In the last five years, while at Brandeis,
have you received formal outside job
offer(s)?”
Number of
Respondents
Yes, and I took
the offer to my
supervisor
Yes, and I did
not take the
offer to my
supervisor
No
656
6.9%
22.0%
71.3%
Percentages may not equal 100%. For each question, not applicable answers are not listed.
When asked why respondents would leave, the two most cited answers were to enhance their
career and to increase their salary. The next cluster of answers included reducing stress, finding a
more supportive work environment, and lowering the cost of living. Table 19 shows reasons why
respondents were considering leaving Brandeis.
18
Table 19: Reasons for Leaving Brandeis
Number of
respondents
Average
response
To a great
extent
To some
extent
Not at All
To enhance your career
634
2.29
46.4%
36.0%
17.7%
To increase your salary
642
2.27
44.5%
37.5%
17.9%
To reduce stress
To find a more supportive work
environment
629
1.71
21.6%
27.7%
50.7%
632
1.63
19.1%
24.4%
56.5%
To lower your cost of living
582
1.61
16.3%
28.2%
55.5%
347
1.35
8.9%
16.7%
74.4%
450
1.38
8.7%
20.7%
70.7%
474
1.35
7.6%
19.4%
73.0%
380
1.20
6.1%
7.6%
86.3%
Retirement
415
1.22
5.5%
10.6%
83.9%
For health reasons
540
1.24
3.9%
16.1%
80.0%
To address child-related
issues
To address other familyrelated issues
To improve the employment
situation of your spouse or
partner
Current appointment ending
Gender: 24.2% of female respondents had received a job offer compared to 39.4% of male
respondents. Male respondents (14.4%) were more likely than female respondents (4.4%) to
have taken a job offer to their supervisors.
Race, Ethnicity and International Status: There were no statistically significant differences by
race, ethnicity or international status for this area.
The Decision to Work at Brandeis Again
Respondents were asked, “If you could decide all over again whether to be an employee at
Brandeis, what would you decide?” Nearly three-fourths of respondents said the would choose to
come to Brandeis again. Table 20 shows the distribution of responses.
Table 20: Would you Choose Brandeis Again?
Number of
Respondents
If you could decide all over again
whether to be an employee at
Brandeis, what would you
decide?
750
I would choose
to come to
Brandeis
74.5%
I would have
second thoughts
22.8%
I would choose
not to come to
Brandeis
2.7%
19
Appendix A: Respondents’ Demographic Information
Respondents by Gender Identity
Male
Female
Trans/other
Did not specify
184
447
7
191
22.2 %
53.9%
1.8%
23.0%
Respondents by Race/Ethnicity and Citizenship Status (IPEDS definitions)
International
19
2.3%
Not specified
231
27.9%
Hispanic/Latino
33
4.0%
Native American or Alaska Native
4
0.5%
Asian
26
3.1%
Black or African American
13
1.6%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
0
0.0%
White
501
60.4%
Two or more races
2
0.2%
20
Appendix B: Information about Statistical Significance
Statistically significant results are results that have small probability (usually 1%, 5%, or 10%) of having
happened merely by chance. There are issues that complicate testing for significance that can lead researchers and consumers of the statistics to the wrong conclusion if certain circumstances exist.
Statistical significance is presented in the staff survey but there are limitations to the analysis.
Likert Scale — The use of statistical significance is disputed when Likert-­‐type question is used. Likert
responses, such as “strongly agree” and “somewhat disagree” are ordinal variables that are not numerical. Thus, assigning values to qualitative responses is a topic of debate. There is also
disagreement over differences in scale between Likert responses. For example, is the difference
between “Strongly agree” and “Agree” the same as “Agree” and “Neither agree nor disagree?” Or is the
difference between “Strongly Agree” and “Agree” the same as “Agree” and “Somewhat agree?”
Quantifying verbal statements leads to uncertainty when computing averages, let alone testing for
significance.
Unequal sample sizes — To compare two groups, an assumption when testing statistical significance is
that the groups are roughly equal sizes. In the staff survey, it is clear to see, for example, that there are
very different sample sizes of white respondents and black or African American respondents.
Normal distribution — With unequal sample sizes, it is possible to conduct a 2-­‐sample t-­‐test if the
responses are normally distributed. However, the majority of responses to the staff survey were not
normally distributed.
Possibility of false negatives — with the above-­‐mentioned points in mind, t-­‐tests and z-­‐tests using the
Bonferroni method were used to identify statistically significant results. As the Bonferroni method is
conservative, it is important to remember that a type II error may exist (meaning that comparisons between groups that are not deemed statistically significant may, in fact, be statistically significant).
21
The full results by gender identity and race are posted as separate documents.
Appendix C: Full Results by Gender
Appendix D: Full Results by Race/Ethnicity and Citizen Status
22