North Seattle College
All College Meetings
Topic: Results of Employee Surveys in February
and May 2014
Dates:
– November 13, 2014, 11:00 a.m., CC1161
– December 4, 2014, 2:00 p.m., NSDR
Purpose:
– Compare the results against your own experience
– Discuss their meaning
– Identity any actions that should be taken
Two Employee Surveys
• Employee Climate Survey—February 2014
• Employee Spring Survey—May 2014
Survey
Total
POC
Female
CL
EX
FTF
PTF
Hrly
???
Climate
160
35
22%
98
61%
32
20%
35
22%
38
24%
35
22%
6
4%
14
9%
Spring
282
82
29%
174
62%
41
15%
48
17%
46
16%
92
33%
44
16%
11
4%
Employee Climate Survey Questions
On a 1 to 5 scale, how satisfied are you....
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
With the spirit of cooperation across campus?
That your suggestions are heard and acted upon?
That resources are adequate for faculty, staff and administrators?
That the college supports your professional development?
That the campus environment is hospitable to all?
How physically safe do you feel on campus?
How safe do you feel in other ways on campus?
How much pride do you feel being an employee?
___________________________________________________________
Opportunity for comments after each question
Opportunity for general comments as the last question
___________________________________________________________
Demographics: gender, race/ethnicity, employee type, years at NSC
Employee Climate Surveys
Three-Year Comparisons
Frequencies
Average Rating (1-5)
Change from 2012
2012
2013
2014
2012
2013
2014
2013
2014
Cooperation
178
94
160
3.25
3.61
3.71
11.1%
14.1%
Suggestions
173
94
159
3.17
3.34
3.46
5.3%
9.0%
Resources
177
95
159
2.86
2.87
3.21
0.3%
12.0%
Prof Development
177
93
158
3.16
3.62
3.78
14.7%
19.6%
Hospitable
173
92
159
3.57
3.85
3.80
7.9%
6.5%
Physically Safe
176
94
154
4.07
4.16
4.20
2.1%
3.1%
Other Safe
NA
93
147
3.88
4.01
Pride
178
94
158
4.03
4.13
4.18
2.5%
3.7%
3.44
3.68
3.79
6.9%
10.1%
Composite Index
2014 Employee Climate Survey
Disaggregated 2014 Results
Groups within or below 5% of the overall mean
Group
All
Number
160
Cooperation
3.71
Suggestions
3.46
Resources
3.21
Prof Develop
3.78
Hospitable
3.80
Physically Safe
4.20
Other Safe
4.01
Pride
4.18
Composite
3.79
POC Women
35
98
CL
EX
FTF
PTF
Hrly
??
32
35
38
35
6
14
2014 Employee Climate Survey
Written comments by question by rating
Blank
1 or 2
3
4 or 5
Total
Cooperation
1
14
11
25
51
Suggestions
1
14
14
14
43
Resources
1
19
12
6
38
Prof Develop
3
10
4
15
32
Hospitable
1
10
12
18
41
Physically Safe
2
18
2
23
35
Other Safe
2
11
4
11
28
Pride
2
3
4
22
31
General
Totals
33
13
Legend
• Blank = no rating
• 1 or 2 = very dissatisfied or dissatisfied
99
63
134
• 3 = neutral
• 4 or 5 = satisfied or very satisfied
332
Employee Spring Survey Questions
Questions
Professional
Development
CommunityBuilding Events
Diversity
Events
Number of activities attended?
Q1
Q6
Q12
Reasons for not attending (open)?
Q2
Q7
Q13
Value of activities (1-5 scale)?
Q3
Q8
Q14
Characteristics of best ones (open)?
Q4
Q9
Q15
Q10
Q16
Suggestions for future activities (open)? Q5
__________________________________________________________
Q11. Besides those listed, have you attend other diversity events?
Q17. Have you experienced discrimination on campus? (13 choices + “other”)
Q18. Opportunity to elaborate on discrimination experience(s).
Q19. Opportunity for general comments as the last question
___________________________________________________________
Q20-22. Demographics: gender, race/ethnicity, employee type
Employee Spring Survey
Disaggregated 2014 Results
Groups not within five percentage points of the overall mean
Group
All
POC Women
Number in sample
282
Q1: PD events = NONE
21% 22%
19% 10%
Q3: Value of PD events
4.18 4.26
4.23 3.97 4.31 4.19 4.18 4.29 4.00
Q6: CB events = NONE
26% 22%
27% 10%
Q8: Value of CB events
3.82 3.89
3.86 4.03 4.00 3.78 3.83 3.60 2.90
Q12: Diversity events =
NONE
35%* 34%
36% 39% 17% 28% 42% 43% 36%
Q14: Value of diversity
events
3.89 3.98
82
174
CL
EX
FTF
PTF
Hrly
??
41
48
46
92
44
11
4%
9% 25% 50% 45%
2%
4.07 3.73 4.17
4% 49% 39% 27%
4.09 3.70 3.96 3.44
* The “none” response was accidentally omitted from the choices. This figure includes all “blank”
responses.
Employee Spring Survey
Q17: Experience(s) of Discrimination (mark all that apply)
76 of 282 (25%) of employees reported 154 types of discrimination
Group
All
POC
Women
CL
EX
FTF
PTF
Hrly
??
Number in sample
282
82
174
41
48
46
92
44
11
# reporting discrimination
76
25%
30
37%
48
28%
16
39%
14
29%
12
26%
18
20%
9
20%
7
64%
29
11
21
6
7
5
6
2
3
8
7
2
3
4
2
2
2
17
12
4
6
5
3
3
1
9
15
2
4
6
4
1
3
Age
Citizenship status
Color
6
15
Disability
5
Gender expression
6
Marital status
8
National origin
5
Political affiliation
8
Race/ethnicity
Religion
Sex
22
9
19
Employee Spring Questions
Number of Written Comments by Topic/Question
Questions
Professional
Development
CommunityBuilding Events
Diversity
Events
Reasons for not attending (open)?
Q2: N=64
Q7: N=76
Q13: N=83
Characteristics of best ones (open)?
Q4: N=191
Q9: N=153
Q15: N=95
Suggestions for future activities
(open)?
Q5: N=176
Q10: n=115
Q16: N=90
Q18. Opportunity to elaborate on discrimination experience(s): N=29
Q19. Opportunity for general comments as the last question: N=29
Total number of comments: 1,113
2014 Employee Surveys
Themes from written comments
331 from Climate Survey; 1,113 from Spring Survey
• Many positive comments about students,
colleagues, the work we do, our impact on
students’ lives, the beauty of the campus, etc.
• At the same time, the comments suggest ways
for us to improve—ways to be more inclusive,
to increase collaboration, to create more
supportive structures and relationships. That
is what the following slides focus on.
Collaboration
• Decisions are not always transparent nor
reflective of input of faculty & staff.
• We tend to work in siloes isolated from and
unaware of one another’s work
• “Us” vs. “them” is felt in different ways
– Faculty vs. staff
– Instruction Building vs. College Center
– Full-time vs. part-time faculty
Part-time Faculty
Often feel marginalized
• Because time and scheduling constrains prevent
their participation in professional development or
community-building events
• Because they encounter some co-workers whose
attitudes convey a “second class citizen” message
• Because they may not know where to find
information about campus services, procedures,
etc.
Psychological/Social Safety
• Employees report instances of discrimination
or intolerance on various characteristics. This
is not always overt, but may be in the form of
“monthly micro-aggressions or invisibility.”
• It is not always safe to disagree with dominant
voices or to show a lack of knowledge or a
level of naiveté about issues.
Physical Safety
For the most part, the campus feels safe. Still ...
– More external lighting is needed.
– Campus signage would facilitate way-finding.
– Emergency preparedness equipment (intercom
speakers, emergency call boxes) does not always
function properly.
– Greater visibility of campus security personnel,
especially at night, would contribute to a greater
sense of safety.
Diversity
• Time and scheduling prevent many from
attending diversity events.
• The conversation about racial/ethnic diversity
has left some feeling defensive, some
excluded, some resistant, some discouraged,
some hopeful.
• Some question the value of “diversity for
diversity’s sake” and ask, “diversity in the
service of what?”
Professional Development
• LDI is a excellent opportunity, one that hopefully will
continue to be available to additional participants.
• Time and scheduling conflicts are common obstacles to
participation, especially for part-time faculty.
• Classified staff report similar constraints, along with
inadequate professional development funds.
• “Networking with colleagues” and “working with
others on common problems” are some reasons that
professional development is valued.
• “Practical” and “relevant” were frequently used to
describe the type of professional development that
people want.
Community-Building
• Some did not know about or feel invited to
community-building events. This was
mentioned by hourly, work-study, volunteer,
and part-time faculty employees.
• Some are not drawn to community-building
because they want a purpose beyond
socializing.
• Others value such events for the opportunity
to mix informally with people from across
campus.
Discussion Questions
• Do these results ring true based on your
personal experience?
• What do these results mean for our
community?
• What actions, if any, are suggested by these
results?
At Your Tables
• Use the discussion questions to address one
or more of the topics.
• Record the key points of your conversation.
• Turn in your notes before you leave, to include
the name of the note taker for follow-up if
needed.
Next Steps
• This presentation/discussion will be repeated
on Thursday, December 4, 2:00-3:00, NSDR.
• Notes from both discussion notes will be
compiled and published to the campus.
• Priority initiatives will be identified by
Executive Team in collaboration with other
groups as suggested/appropriate.
Thank You
• For coming and for participating
• For encouraging your co-workers to
participate as well
• For your continued interest in and
commitment to this work