LCC PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………… iii

Introduction

Background…………..…………………………………………. 1

Purpose and Research Question……………………………….. 1

Research Procedures/Methodology

Design…………………………………………………………… 2

Population and Sample Size……………………………………. 2

Data Excluded from the Study………………………..………… 3

Instrument………………………………………………………. 3

Data Collection Methods………………………………..……… 3

Validity/Reliability…..…………………….…………………… 5

Method of Analysis……………………………………………… 5

Findings/Results………………………………………………..….. 7

Conclusions/Recommendations…………………………………… 20

Appendixes

Faculty & Staff Survey (Questionnaire)…………………..…… A1

Summary of Quantitative Data…………………………..…….. B1

Hand-Written Comments…….…………………………..…….. C1

Abstract

This study was conducted to obtain information about how the faculty and staff at Leeward Community College view the institution’s services and work environment. The findings/results are expected to provide meaningful data, and focus to College decision-makers.

The design of this study involved primarily a quantitative approach, utilizing a survey as the instrument for data collection. However, some qualitative data was also collected through the use of an optional comments question. All of the faculty and staff were given the opportunity to participate in this study because each employee’s opinion was viewed important to the planning process. From the 341 college employees, 189 people responded for an overall response rate of 55%.

Analysis of data produced the following more salient findings/results:

a. All groups were satisfied with the actions of the College, and the mission statement. However, APTs and Civil Service workers were dissatisfied with the effectiveness of the organizational structure.

b. All groups were satisfied with the extent to which they received information from their supervisors, but APTs rated their level of satisfaction much lower than all the other groups.

c. Information from Administrators appears not to be reaching many College employees. APTs and Civil Service workers were dissatisfied with the extent to which they received information from Administrators. However, Administrators, Clerical workers, Lecturers, and Faculty were satisfied.

d. With the exception of Lecturers, none of the groups seemed satisfied with the extent to which information was shared across divisions/units.

e. The College lacks a spirit of cooperation as evidenced by the dissatisfaction levels of all groups except Administrators and Faculty. Faculty were about neutral on this issue.

f. All groups with the exception of Lecturers were dissatisfied with the extent to which the College rewards good work.

g. APTs were dissatisfied with regards to their being appreciated for the job that they do.

h. Administrators were not satisfied with the staff performance appraisal system.

i. Faculty were dissatisfied with the cleanliness of the buildings.

j. APTs and Faculty felt that they were not receiving the adequate supplies and equipment necessary to support instruction.

k. All groups agree that there was a lack of financial resources available to the College. Also, APTs, Clerical Staff, and Faculty felt that the college was not utilizing its resources effectively.

l. All groups were satisfied with the College’s decision-making process. Aside from Administrators, Faculty were the most satisfied. APTs, the Clerical Staff, and Civil Service workers were the least satisfied.

Research Report on

Faculty & Staff Satisfaction

Introduction

Background

Leeward Community College (LCC) continually strives to create and maintain a scholarly setting and comfortable work environment. In doing so, the College relies on data, and conducts research to aid in the College’s evaluation and decision-making process. Most recently, the College completed three studies[1] in which data was collected regarding student satisfaction. These studies involved the use of surveys that were administered during the Summer 99, Winter 99/00, and Spring 00 semesters. The data generated from these student questionnaires provided institutional planners with invaluable information from which to improve the College’s programs and services.

Although several studies have been conducted soliciting student opinions, what has not been collected as of yet is information relative to how the faculty and staff view the College and its operations. Therefore, commensurate with LCC’s continuing efforts to collect and use data as part of the College’s evaluation and decision-making process, this research study was initiated. It is hoped that the results of this study will provide meaningful information to College planners and offer some degree of focus as leadership continues in their attempts to improve the institution’s work environment.

Purpose and Research Question

The overall purpose of this research was to gather information regarding how the faculty and staff felt about the College and its various programs so that pertinent information about the College could be collected and important issues identified. Specifically, this study investigated the question of whether the faculty and staff were satisfied with the College’s services and work environment.

Research Procedures/Methodology

Design

The design for this study involved primarily a quantitative approach, utilizing a survey as the instrument for data collection. However, some qualitative data was also collected through the use of an open-ended optional “Comments” question. The survey was made available to all faculty and staff working at the College in the beginning of the Fall 2000 semester. Questionnaire items were developed based upon the purpose and research question associated with this study.

Population and Sample Size

The population included all faculty and staff, both full and part-time, working at Leeward Community College during the Fall 2000 semester. In total, there were 341 employees. There were no samples derived from this population, instead all college personnel were afforded the opportunity to participate in this survey. All employees were included in this study because each employee’s opinion was valued and deemed important to the overall planning process.

The following is a breakdown of the number of employees by employment classification, and the number of people who completed the survey.

Employment Classification	Total Employees	Number of Respondents
Administrator	6	4
Admin/Professional/Technical	38	29
Clerical	44	26
Faculty	170	108
Faculty Lecturer	51	5
Civil Service	32	12
Total	341	184*

* Note: There were an additional 5 surveys completed that did not have the job classification identified. In total, there were 189 completed surveys.

Data Excluded from the Study

The only data excluded from this study were associated with multiple responses to individual survey questions. These data were excluded from the statistical computations because the design of this study and the particular statistical methods used did not allow for analysis of multiple responses. There were no questions on the survey that required or solicited multiple responses. Although faculty and staff were directed to choose only one response for each question, a few participants chose to reply with more than one answer anyway. However, those multiple responses were very few in number.

Instrument

The instrument used was a faculty and staff survey, which contained 43 questions. Thirty-nine of the items measured differing levels of satisfaction and used a 5-point Likert-type response scale. The response scale ranged from Very Satisfied to Very Dissatisfied and had an optional answer of “Don’t Know or Does Not Apply”. The remaining four items were closed-ended questions that captured demographic information. One additional item was placed on the survey that allowed for faculty and staff to write in any comments they wanted in response to this survey. This item was labeled as “Comments? (Optional)”. (The survey is at Appendix A)

The survey was anonymous and faculty and staff were instructed not to put their names or personal information anywhere on the form. Participants were also informed that their participation was voluntary.

Data Collection Methods

The survey was administered in two separate settings in order to maximize the overall response rate. The first administration was conducted during the Fall 2000 Convocation. This occasion was chosen as an opportune time to collect data due to the large gathering of faculty and staff that normally attend this function. There were approximately 135 people who attended the Fall 2000 Convocation and 89 surveys were completed for a return rate of 66%.

Following this initial administration of the questionnaire, surveys were then distributed throughout the College so that employees who did not have an opportunity to participate at the convocation could do so. Note: The survey instructions were modified to emphasize that individuals should complete the survey only once. During the course of this second period of data collection, two follow-up reminders were sent out to all employees. One reminder was in the form of an e-mail message, the other follow-up reminder was sent via recorded telephone message. From this second administration of the survey, there were an additional 100 surveys completed.

Altogether, there were a total of 189 surveys completed. The following chart depicts the percentage, by job classification, of the 189 respondents that make-up the dataset.

Once the surveys were returned to the LCC Institutional Researcher, they were scanned into a desktop computer using specialized scanning equipment and software programs specifically designed for that purpose. The Researcher then analyzed the data using Excel and SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) software programs.

Data regarding the employee job classifications and total headcounts were obtained from the LCC Human Resource Office.

Validity/Reliability

The survey was initially developed by the LCC Institutional Researcher based on surveys that were conducted at other institutions. The instrument then went through iterative reviews by both faculty and administrators. The reviews simplified the language of the survey, corrected grammatical errors and misspellings, and strengthened the connections between the research question and survey items.

While the survey was administered to a population of 341 faculty and staff, not all employees completed the questionnaire. From the entire population of 341 employees, only 189 surveys were returned. This yielded an overall response rate of 55%, which is high enough to provide a 95% confidence level of validity.

The highest Standard Error of the Mean for any one item on the survey was .09. This suggests that for any such item with this level of standard error, that the true mean could vary as much as .09 for each +/- 1 standard deviation of the observed mean. As an example, item #29, “The safety and security of the campus” which had an observed mean of 3.42; the true mean should fall somewhere between 3.33 and 3.51, based upon one standard deviation. The Findings/Results Section of this report, and the Summary of Quantitative Data (Appendix A) contain the standard errors along with the mean, and the standard deviation results for each survey question.

Method of Analysis

Descriptive statistics were completed on all the data in order to determine the frequency counts and percentage of item responses. Additionally, for the 39 satisfaction questions with Likert response scales, the mean, standard deviation, and the standard error of the mean were calculated. Descriptive statistics were also used to help check for errors that might have occurred when inputting data into the statistical software package. When appropriate, tables were employed in order to help depict or illustrate the data.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used as the statistical method for comparing the levels of satisfaction among the different classifications of employees. This was accomplished to help identify any group that might have had an unusually higher or lower than average level of satisfaction for any specific question. Identifying these differences helped isolate important issues and will assist planners in focusing on areas needing attention. Bonferroni and Turkey tests were the ANOVA subtests used to determine if specific items differed among groups.

Content Analysis was not performed on the qualitative data (hand-written comments) because the remarks, while very poignant, were limited in their numbers. It was felt that valid inferences could not be drawn from such small numbers of comments. However, the comments are included in this report at Appendix C for the reader to review and interpret. Note: The hand-written comments are unedited and contain the language, misspellings, and grammatical errors, as written by the faculty and staff. The only exception to this rule was when a comment identified a specific individual in a negative fashion. In those situations, the name was masked in order to protect the anonymity of the faculty/staff member.

Findings/Results

The 189 questionnaires collected from the administration of the faculty and staff survey were analyzed to answer the research question developed at the beginning of this study. For the statistical data, Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA testing were the techniques used to perform this analysis.

To allow for better conceptualization of the College’s programs, services, and work environment, individual questions were grouped together. The groupings were:

1) College Mission and Organization

2) Communications

3) Collaboration

4) Work Environment

5) Administrative & Support Services

6) Facilities

7) Resources

8) Planning & Evaluation

The mean, standard deviation, and the standard error of the mean were calculated for each individual question using the Likert scale values of 5 for Very Satisfied, 4 for Satisfied, 3 for Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied, 2 for Dissatisfied, and 1 for Very Dissatisfied. A mid-point value of 3 was deemed the dividing line between the level of satisfaction and dissatisfaction based upon the Likert response scale used.

The following analyses were accomplished on two levels. First, the overall response rates for the 189 participants were reviewed, and then the response rates by employee job classification were examined. Analysis was completed at both these levels because each level of analysis provided different findings/results, which in-turn provided more information about key issues. The second level of analysis was particularly informative because the job classification seemed to be a critical element in the way employees responded to the various questions.

A note of caution is interjected here and appropriate as one attempts to interpret the following statistics. Be aware that the number of participants for any one group of employees must be considered when comparing the mean scores and assigning levels of importance to the satisfaction results. For example, Administrators rated item #27, “The cleanliness of the buildings” with a satisfaction level of 3.75 while Faculty rated this same question with a 2.93 mean level of dissatisfaction. Incidentally, the overall mean for this question was 3.12. One must remember that there were only four Administrators that participated in this survey while there were 108 Faculty that returned surveys. So, this large difference in the number of participants dictates that just comparing the mean ratings to each other is inappropriate. What must be done is to look at the disparities among the groups and then ask “why” one group feels differently than the others. In this case, it is probably correct to assume that Faculty members visited or worked in virtually every room on the campus while Administrators were more restricted to the Administration building and its locale. Therefore, one could understand the different perspectives each group might have. However, the importance of this finding is that 108 Faculty were dissatisfied with the cleanliness of the buildings. When such a large number of employees share the same relative perspective, campus leadership should be attentive. Hypothetically, if the results were inverted and 108 Faculty were satisfied with a mean score of 3.75 and Administrators rated the cleanliness of buildings with a 2.93 level of dissatisfaction, then leadership should be less responsive in making any substantive changes based on the responses of only 4 individuals.

The following chart indicates the number of participants, by employment classification, that responded to the survey.

Employment Classification	Number of Respondents
Administrator	4
Admin/Professional/Technical	29
Clerical	26
Faculty	108
Faculty Lecturer	5
Civil Service	12
Total	184

College Mission and Organization

In reviewing and analyzing the first set of survey questions, a table was developed which reflects the overall mean level of satisfaction for questions 1 through 3. These data are based upon the total number of respondents.

Table 1: Overall Mean, Questions 1-3

Questions	N	Mean	Dev	Error
1. The actions of the College reflect its mission	179	3.43	.94	.07
2. The College’s mission statement is current	182	3.64	.83	.06
3. The effectiveness of the organizational structure	181	3.01	1.01	.08

From the table above, it appears that overall, faculty and staff were satisfied that the College’s actions reflect its mission, and that the College’s mission statement is current. College employees also were satisfied with the effectiveness of the organizational structure.

While it appears as though overall, employees were satisfied with the mission and organization, a more in-depth look at the response rates of the different groups based upon employment classification identified several groups that were not as satisfied as others. Following is a table that reflects the average satisfaction rates by group, for questions 1 through 3.

Table 2: Mean by Employment Classification, Questions 1-3

Questions	Admin	APT	Clerical	Faculty	Lecturer	Civil Svs
1. College actions	4.25	3.35	3.30	3.44	3.75	3.63
2. Mission statement	4.00	3.65	3.52	3.67	3.75	3.63
3. Organizational structure	3.50	2.74	3.04	3.07	3.80	2.88

The table above shows that all groups were satisfied with the actions of the College, and the College’s mission statement. However, what can also be seen from this second level of analysis is that the APTs and Civil Service workers were dissatisfied with the effectiveness of the organizational structure. Additionally, Administrators and Lecturers were the only two groups that rated the effectiveness of the organizational structure with any real degree of positive satisfaction. Faculty and Clerical workers appeared to be about neutral on this issue. Perhaps some further investigation is appropriate by soliciting input from the APTs and Civil Service employees regarding their dissatisfaction with the College’s organizational structure. There may be some improvements, which can only be identified through the eyes of these employees, that would make the organizational structure more effective.

Communications

For the next series of questions, Communications was the central issue investigated. Following is a table, which reflects the overall response rates provided by the 189 study participants.

Table 3: Overall Mean, Questions 4-5

Questions

Mean

Dev