2015 CSUSB Campus Climate Survey: Phase 2 Report

This report is the second of two that address results of CSUSB's 2015 Campus Climate survey.This survey was distributed via email invitation to all employees at CSUSB in fall quarter 2015.The purpose of the survey was to measure the organizational climate of CSUSB.Within this paper, we describe employees' perceptions of the performance evaluation process; the potential for job growth and career advancement on the campus; workload; work stress; communication and application of policies and procedures; perceptions of diversity; psychological safety, respect, and trust; and incivility and bullying.Both numerical ratings and themes generated from comments to the open-ended questions, with representative statements by respondents, are presented.Background.At two fora in June 2015, sponsored by the Faculty Senate executive committee, over 200 faculty and staff gathered to express concerns about the campus climate.The faculty senate chair requested that the chancellor sponsor a survey to assess the campus' climate.Chancellor White declined to sponsor the survey, but encouraged the campus community to work together to address the issues.Consequently, an ad hoc committee of faculty and staff formed to conduct the study.These experts in survey design, statistics, measurement, leadership, and industrial-organizational psychology spearheaded the survey development process and ultimately, the analysis of the data collected. Results.Phase 2 results, relying on 756 respondents, indicate that there are significant problems on the CSUSB campus, which likely contribute to (and extend beyond) the low morale cited in the Phase 1 report.In this report, the dimensions that we suggest are particularly concerning are bullying, lack of psychological safety, favoritism (lack of inclusion), and work stress.Bullying appears to be widely practiced on campus -a quarter of the respondents had personally experienced bullying and more than 40 percent had witnessed bullying.Comments show that key perpetrators of the practice tend to be those in powerful positions.Victims of bullying are hesitant to report because they fear retaliation, believe it is futile to report, want to avoid additional conflict, or believe that HR would not properly handle the issue.Another dimension of concern is that many employees on campus characterize their work environment as threatening, or do not feel safe expressing an honest opinion for fear of 2015 CSUSB Campus Climate Survey, Phase 2 Results, May 10, 2016, page 2 inviting retaliation from management.As we noted in our first report, there is a lack of trust on campus, with that perception reinforced in Phase 2 results, with less than a quarter of respondents agreeing that "an atmosphere of trust exists."In addition, although there is considerable support for diversity, with many respondents indicating that they personally value diversity and that they believe their coworkers and supervisors treat people with respect regardless of cultural background, many believe that senior management does not treat people fairly on this basis.Respondent comments emphasized that diversity is a valued aspect of the campus community but also that preferential treatment is commonplace.Turning to workload and work stress, working more than 50 hours is the norm for faculty and administrators.Although some respondents reported that they didn't mind working long hours, a prevalent theme was that the amount of work to be done was not reasonable and caused stress.Comments strengthened these concerns by emphasizing a lack of staff to accomplish the work to be done and the notion that top management either contributed to the work overload through its policies, or was tone-deaf to workload issues.Respondents were asked questions about the communication and application of policies, to which many people reported that they believed that policies at the departmental level were usually communicated in a timely manner, were sufficiently explained, and systematically applied.These levels of agreement lessened at each step of the hierarchy with less agreement at the college or divisional level, and even less at the campus level.Additionally, respondents were asked about the performance evaluation process.The faculty, for the most part, agreed that the process was clear and fair, but expressed reservations with regard to the weights given to student evaluations and service, as well as objections to the SOTE instrument.Staff, on the whole, agreed that their evaluations were conducted on a regular basis and done fairly by the person most knowledgeable about their work, and were provided with meaningful feedback; with that said, respondent comments also suggested that there was favoritism in the process and that evaluations are often used to punish or retaliate against employees.Further, less than 40 percent of staff agreed that their positions were properly classified and specific questions addressing the in-range progression (IRP) process were revealing; most telling, the process, which is to take less than 90 days, typically takes at least that long or longer.Finally, questions on the survey asked employees for their perceptions of job growth and career advancement opportunities on the campus.Both faculty and staff were positive with regard to training and educational opportunities needed for job growth, with the notable exception that less than half of faculty, staff, and administrators agreed that they were "optimistic about the future of my career at CSUSB." 2015 CSUSB Campus Climate Survey, Phase 2 Results, May 10, 2016, page 3 Conclusion.As with the Phase 1 report, there are significant issues at CSUSB that must be addressed by leadership.The results detailed in this Phase 2 report reinforce the themes that were present in the first phase report: faculty and staff value the campus and the students they serve.Faculty and staff value diversity, are satisfied with their jobs, and want to do good work in the service of the primary academic mission.At the departmental level, faculty and staff respect each other's cultural backgrounds, treat each other with respect, and trust one another.These values, however, do not transcend across the campus, nor are they perceived to be enacted values of the top leadership.As stated in the Phase 1 report, faculty and staff are devoted to the primary mission of the university, but they have lost confidence in leadership.Not only do they feel underappreciated, undervalued, and unheard, many also feel overworked, stressed, and bullied.The sense of community that many believe existed on the campus a few years ago, is largely gone.There are deeply divisive issues at work at CSUSB and without immediate attention, these issues will continue a brain drain and, further, make it hard to attract employees to the university, all at a time when there are more students to be served than can be accommodated.The university can ill afford to lose such engaged and involved employees, but that is a very real possibility, given these data.The source of many of these issues lies with campus leadership.Recommendations regarding Phase 2. As with the recommendations made from Phase 1 results, we recommend that senior management work to restore the trust that has been lost and to reduce the climate of fear and favoritism that large groups of faculty and staff perceive.It will not be easy.The reader is encouraged to read the full text of our recommendations in the concluding section of this report.Some concrete recommendations include: Read Phases 1 and 2 of the Campus Climate Survey Report in their entirety with special attention to what employees are saying when they are given an opportunity, as with this survey, to speak freely. Create an explicit anti-bullying policy which includes credible enforcement procedures and procedures for handling complaints in a fair and timely fashion. Sponsor an audit of HR's practices and policies by an independent party. Invite input from campus constituencies BEFORE decisions have been made, and ensure that it is done in a way that people feel "safe" in providing ideas. Work more closely with constituents than has been the practice thus far.This is especially important in situations where the majority of the employees who will be affected by a particular decision are not in favor of that decision (as has been the case in the recent past). Conduct a workload audit to identify departments for which there are imbalances in work distribution and expectation. Commit to an ongoing process of data collection to evaluate campus climate over time. Bring in an executive coach who specializes in the area of authentic, ethical, and relational leadership.2015 CSUSB Campus Climate Survey, Phase 2 Results, May 10, 2016, page 4As we stated in our first report, it is possible that some faculty and staff do not believe that top leadership can or wants to change.Yet, we believe that faculty and staff are likely to respond positively to attentive, caring, authentic leadership.Improving CSUSB's campus climate and culture will require, first of all, that top leadership acknowledge that a problem exists.Second, it is important that top leadership genuinely listen to employees-all employees-and address their concerns.Third, top leaders need to model integrity consistently to restore employee trust.If there is even one instance where trust is breached or leadership reverts to the same behaviors and practices that contributed to decreases in morale, trust is likely not going to be restored, and any gains in this area will be lost.Finally, top leadership must demonstrate that all employees are valued, not just a select number who support the leadership already, and show that active steps are being taken to restore trust.The authors 1 of this report offer their assistance to guide the recommended culture change.We believe that CSUSB is at a critical stage and that immediate behavior change is necessary if CSUSB is to

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.