FINAL REPORT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON STRUCTURE & CLIMATE
Moving Ahead Together
Improving the University's Structure & Climate
June 13, 2011
Recommendations of the President's Advisory Committee on Structure & Climate
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
2. President’s Advisory Committee on Structure & Climate
3. Focus Group Findings
4. Workplace Climate Survey
5. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee
6. Conclusions
1. Executive Summary
“Doing this survey may make a difference…very good step. I hope more steps can be taken to build a more transparent and collegial relationship between faculty and Administration. There has been a lot of mistrust and bitterness in the last 10 years, so improving on the overall climate would be great.”
STU Workplace Climate Survey Participant, February 2011
The significant growth of St. Thomas University in the last ten years or so has influenced the workplace climate and changed the relationship between management and its employees. Structurally, the organization is still managed by a small but dedicated staff, but trying to respond to new demands while balancing fiscal realities has been challenging for most post-secondary institutions and St. Thomas is no exception. The lack of a clear succession plan following Dr. Daniel O’Brien’s presidency, the Board of Governors’ decision to have a closed search for a presidential successor, and other outstanding issues precipitated tensions and conflict regarding structure and climate. These difficulties were exacerbated by the fact that following difficult and protracted labour negotiations with its faculty association (FAUST) in late 2007, St. Thomas University, for the first time in its history, started the New Year in a lock-out and strike situation. While an agreement was eventually signed and faculty returned to work, mistrust and hard feelings stemming from this event have persisted.
Recognizing this fact, in September 2010, President Dennis Cochrane established the President’s Advisory Committee on Structure & Climate to examine these issues and come up with recommendations on improving the situation. This advisory body made up of representatives from the University’s broad community including Board of Governors, faculty, administrative staff, alumni, and students began its deliberations immediately. The first order of business requested by the President was to deal with the Dean’s issue, i.e. specifically, why did so few candidates apply for the Dean of Faculty and Dean of Research positions and why did no women apply?
From the outset, the Advisory Committee realized it needed empirical data to support its work and thus began a series of focus group sessions with faculty and staff to gain a better appreciation of their views on a variety of issues including; academic governance, distribution of work and equity to name a few. An interim report and recommendations stemming from the focus sessions was submitted to the President in mid-December and action has already been taken on a number of the recommendations, specifically those related to the Dean’s positions and oversight of academic departments.
Other recommendations related to the equitable representation of both genders in staff and faculty positions, particularly at the senior levels will take longer to address, but in the opinion of the Advisory Committee are strategically critical to improving the workplace climate. In addition, gender sensitivity and equity training was recommended for all University employees. (Please refer to Section 3, pages 8 & 9, for a complete summary of recommendations resulting from these focus sessions.)
To supplement feedback obtained in the focus sessions, the Advisory Committee recommended that the University hire a third-party service provider to conduct a comprehensive workplace climate survey. Metrics@Work, a firm with post-secondary experience formally associated with Brock University, was selected to develop and administer St. Thomas University’s first-ever climate survey. The consultant’s reports are attached as appendices, however a summary of key findings are listed below.
In terms of key organizational strengths, the survey identified strong positive responses from STU participants in the following Quality of Work Life (QWL) areas…satisfaction with Department/Faculty leader and satisfaction with the University’s physical work environment. Furthermore, STU compared favorably with 150 other Canadian organizations in the following catagories:
• Satisfaction with Physical Work Environment
• Workload
• Job Control
• Employee Involvement - Department / Faculty
The survey also identified key opportunities for improvement. These include areas of weakness as perceived by a significant number of survey participants, namely; low scores on satisfaction with senior management andteam recognition. The lowest rated areas compared to Metrics@Work database included the following areas:
• Cooperation between Colleagues
• Training Satisfaction
• Satisfaction with Senior Management
• Continuous Improvement
• Organizational Communication
• Team Recognition
• Benefits Satisfaction
It is interesting to note that for both faculty and administrative staff, responses to the open-ended question of (What specific action(s) could be taken overall to make this organization a better place to work?) both groups identified “improvements in administration” and “issues with senior managers” as their number one concerns.
In view of these findings, the President’s Advisory Committee on Structure and Climate urge the University to adopt the recommendations contained in section five of this report. Furthermore, we believe there is a collective responsibility for the full University community to use the findings of the workplace climate survey as a stimulus for positive change. If these proposed measures are fully embraced, St. Thomas will be Moving Ahead Togetherin a manner that can set us apart from other institutions…other employers. We should strive to be one of the best places to work in Canada. We have both the capacity and ability to do so, given our size and the quality of our people. The timing and urgency for such action is opportune, with a new President beginning her term at the start of our second centenary.
NOTE This is the first of two reports resulting from the work of the President's Advisory Committee on Structure & Climate, containing a summary of relevant data and the committee's recommendations. A second report, focusing on a detailed thematic analysis of qualitative data, is currently being prepared and will be sent to the President in the near future.
2. President’s Advisory Committee on Structure & Climate
President Cochrane established the Advisory Committee on Structure & Climate in September 2010 with the following broad terms of reference.
Terms of Reference-President’s Advisory Committee on Structure and Climate
General
This Advisory Committee is a workplace-focused group appointed by the University’s President to consider issues that affect the University’s structure and work climate. It has been tasked to look broadly at a variety of issues that may be affecting employee and faculty job satisfaction, performance and career progression. The Committee has been asked to identify these issues, consult with the University community, and provide recommendations to the President on ways of improving the workplace climate and structure.
Specific
While the Advisory Committee’s work is very broad, it will consider the following areas but not be limited to them.
• Equity and minority representation • Organizational design
• Individual job characteristics and responsibilities • Co-worker relations
• Culture and work environment • Management and supervisory issues
• Work and career progression • Communications
• Job satisfaction • Work-life balance
• Equity in workload and teaching assignments
Methodology
The Advisory Committee will use a variety of means to solicit input from staff and faculty including climate surveys, focus groups, individual interviews and exit questionnaires.
Membership
• Board of Governors’ Representatives - Mr. Peter Kavanagh, Mr. Joseph Coughlan
• Senate Representatives - Dr. Kim Fenwick, Dr. Shaunda Wood, Ms. Ella Henry
• FAUST Representatives - Dr. Julia Torrie, Dr. Suzanne Dudziak
• PSAC Representative - Ms. Alison Belyea
• President’s Representatives - Ms. Karen Preston, Dr. Peter Toner, Dr. Shaun Narine
• Administrative Support & Chair – Mr. Humphrey Sheehan
3. Focus Group Findings
The Advisory Committee has adopted a multi-pronged approach to dealing with the issues under its broad mandate. It was thus agreed that conducting focus groups with faculty would be beneficial to the overall process, and would supplement input received from the workplace climate survey, interviews, written submissions, and other sources.
Initially, women faculty (full-time and part-time) were invited to attend a series of lunch time, brown bag sessions. These occurred on the following dates:
Monday, November 8 Friday, November 12
Monday, November 15 Friday, November 19
Discussion focused on 2 central questions:
1. What prevents women faculty from applying for management positions at STU?
2. What changes in the climate and structure at STU would foster greater equity?
Discussion was facilitated by women faculty members of the Advisory Committee, using the approach of rounds to ensure that everyone had an opportunity to share their views. A similar process was undertaken with male faculty members, although participation in the female faculty focus group sessions was significantly higher than for their male colleagues. Thirty (30) female faculty participated in these sessions.
General Observations:
The general consensus that emerged from the Advisory Committee’s initial discussions with faculty was that issues of workload and lack of administrative support and the uncertainty around what the job of Dean(s) would entail were the major issues preventing faculty members from applying for the positions.
One participant suggested the reason why some people would not apply to be Dean is that the prospective candidate’s research would need to go on hold for a year, or for the duration of the appointment; therefore an unwillingness to leave the academic world behind, resulting in a perceived loss of scholarly productivity.
Despite the notion that equality has been achieved in our society, the reality is that women continue to have and assume more family responsibilities. Concern was expressed regarding the challenges of balancing family-related responsibilities with such an unrealistically onerous position.
The view was also expressed that the administration did a poor job of managing the search for the two existing Dean positions. Moreover, the parameters of the positions were always poorly defined and amorphous. Generally, there is the sense that expectations for these jobs may be unreasonable.
A major concern coming from the focus sessions is the senior management team and the perceived lack of respect for faculty among some members of that team. Note, this was also confirmed in the findings from the subsequent workplace climate survey. Faculty members do not want to become part of a senior management team that is openly negative about faculty. Some members of the senior management team are not trusted by faculty members. Faculty are reluctant to apply for the Dean position because they would have to work with people they simply do not trust.
Specific Observations Related to Female Faculty
There is a distrust of what is perceived as a male-dominated administration and lack of support for faculty, particularly female members. Some felt there has been a clear pattern of gendered exclusion over the years. Bullying was a serious concern raised by female participants.
As a result of the focus sessions with faculty, the Advisory Committee submitted the following recommendations to the President for consideration in December 2010.
Recommendations Regarding Deans’ Positions:
1. There is a need for a review of job descriptions for the Deans’ positions and a clear description of their duties so that perspective candidates understand expectations and that the jobs themselves are reasonable in scope and responsibility. Furthermore, it was deemed desirable for these positions to have a certain autonomy and control over their own budgets;
2. The issue of workload could be addressed by dividing the Dean position into two or three positions (e.g., Dean of Arts and Dean of Professional Programmes or Dean of Social Sciences, Dean of Humanities, and Dean of Professional Programmes) or adding Associate Dean positions to the current structure. This would have the added benefit of introducing more experienced faculty members into upper management;
3. The salary and benefits of a Dean or Associate Dean position should be clearly stated;
4. Faculty members assuming the position of Dean or Associate Dean should be guaranteed protection of employment such that they are immediately reinstated as faculty members without loss of status or salary upon termination of their administrative appointment; and,
5. It was felt that the feeder group for the Deans’ positions should logically be the individuals who have served as Chairs of Departments. Thus it would be desirable for these Chairs to receive training and orientation to these positions and that mentoring opportunities be provided to them as well;
Other Recommendations:
6. After listening to the concerns of faculty, particularly the female members who participated in these focus groups as well as considering the results of the FAUST-sponsored equity sessions held earlier this fall, the Advisory Committee suggests that all administrative staff and faculty receive gender sensitivity and equity training which would also address bullying;
7. A final recommendation is that the University should take steps to ensure there is an equitable number of male and female administrative staff and faculty particularly in its senior management cadre.
Response to recommendations
In February 2011, President Cochrane responded favorably to the Advisory Committee’s recommendations by announcing a number of changes to the structure and oversight of the Deans’ positions. Firstly, while the Dean of Research was retained, the Dean of Faculty was eliminated and replaced by two new positions; that of Dean of Humanities and Dean of Social Sciences, with reporting of departments split between these two new positions.
Furthermore, other changes were made to the three Dean positions that were consistent with the Advisory Committee’s recommendations and dealt with reporting relationships (Deans to report to the VP Academic), length of term appointments (three years with a possibility of renewal for an additional three years), recognition of workload (Deans would carry 3 credit hour courses), improved clarity around effect of positions on tenure and supplementary annual stipends ($17,000). New job descriptions would also be developed.
The Advisory Committee believes these are positive developments and encourages the University’s administration to implement recommendations number five through seven as well.
4. Workplace Climate Survey
“Thank you so much for initiating this survey. In my 10 years here,
this is the first time I feel listened to.”
STU Workplace Climate Survey Participant, February 2011
In early November 2010, the University sought the services of a professional consultant to conduct its first-ever workplace climate survey. A request for proposals was prepared which identified the University’s intent to hire a service provider who would develop appropriate survey questionnaires, administer the survey and prepare an analysis of the findings for the President’s Advisory Committee on Structure and Climate.
The deliverables included the design, conduct and evaluation of a survey of all full and part-time faculty (262 full and part-time) and administrative staff (84) of the University, including approximately 215 students employed on a casual basis with the University. The survey had to guarantee confidentiality and be administered electronically to gather both quantitative and qualitative data.
The survey questionnaire consisted of a set of core questions for each of the three groups (faculty, staff and student employees) that covered subjects such as; employee engagement, respectful and supportive workplace, workplace behaviors, leadership, supervision and structure to name a few. An additional set of questions were developed for faculty that covered specific academic issues of interest to the Advisory Committee. These included questions on; teaching and research support, faculty workload ratios, cohesion with faculty colleagues, faculty recognition and student supervision etc. The intent was to have the questionnaire take no more than a half hour for participants to complete.
The questionnaire also featured three open-ended questions of a more generic nature that elicited a broad spectrum of general comments from all three employee cohorts and more specific suggestions on what actions should be taken to improve the workplace. A few examples are listed below that give a flavor of the many divergent views of participants.
“In a very privileged position.
I do, however, feel marginalized in the university which pretty well ignores us unless there is some PR benefit to something I've done.
I could use some new computers,
better book shelves.”
STU Workplace Climate Survey Participant, February 2011
“I love St. Thomas and am generally happy with the institution.”
STU Workplace Climate Survey Participant, February 2011
An invitation to participate in the survey was e-mailed to all employees of the University during March Break (second week in March 2011). Given initial slow returns, the Advisory Committee requested an extension of an additional few days to ensure everyone had an opportunity to participate. The survey was completed by electronically over a two week period and responses were sent directly to the Metrics@Work server in St. Catharine’s, Ontario, to ensure confidentiality. Notwithstanding the Advisory Committee’s and the consultant’s determined efforts to allay any concerns about the confidential nature of the survey, some participants/employees still expressed concerns on the matter.
Response rates are summarized on the following page but generally participation was deemed satisfactory.
|
Response Rates: Overall: 293 / 561 = 52.2%
Faculty: 138 / 262 = 52.7%
Staff: 69 / 84 = 82.1%
Student Staff: 86 / 215 = 40.0%
The Metrics@Work average response rate is approx. 60%. |
Response rates indicate that the survey managed to capture the vast majority of full-time faculty (90 participants) plus over 80% of administrative staff. While student numbers were relatively low, there were still 86 students who took the time to respond to the workplace survey. These response rates allow the University and Advisory Committee to be reasonably confident that the survey captured a significant cross-section of the STU community in this first-ever workplace survey exercise.
Survey Findings
Key Organizational Strengths
Potential Areas of Strength
Average scores 75% or above indicate that the average response to the questions in the scale areas highlighted below was within the “agree or strongly agree” range. Metrics@Work considers this a strong positive finding. The following Quality of Work Life (QWL) scale areas represent averages 75% or above:
• Satisfaction with Department / Faculty Leader
• Satisfaction with Physical Work Environment
Highest Scoring Areas Compared to the Metrics@Work Database:
Using the Metrics@Work database they were able to compare STU’s results to those of approximately 150 other Canadian organizations. In their experience they have found that differences of more than 5.0% between an organization's score for a scale area and the database average for that scale to be observably significant (though they caution that this is not necessarily a statistically valid significance). The following scale areas are those that have scored observably higher than the database average:
• Satisfaction with Physical Work Environment
• Workload
• Job Control
• Employee Involvement - Department / Faculty
Key Opportunities for Improvement
Key opportunities for improvement can be derived from St. Thomas University QWL scale areas that reflect scores in the lower range of results. This executive summary illustrates some highlights of the survey results; however, the consultants encourage readers to consider the attached reports in more detail, with particular attention to the Group Comparison section for group specific opportunities for improvement.
Potential Areas of Weakness
Average scores of 41.6% or lower indicate that the average response to all the questions in each QWL scale area was within the “somewhat disagree to strongly disagree” range. QWL scale areas that score within this range indicate potential opportunities for improvement. The following QWL areas represent averages 41.6% or lower:
• Satisfaction with Senior Management
• Team Recognition
The consultants did provide a further analysis of the thematic commentaries and It is interesting to note that for both faculty and administrative staff, responses to the open-ended question of (What specific action(s) could be taken overall to make this organization a better place to work?), both groups identified “improvements in administration” and “issues with senior managers” as their number one areas for improvement.
Faculty
In the faculty cohort, the ‘Improvements in Administration’ key theme was ranked first overall with 59 meaning units assigned (52.7% of total). The following concepts represent an overview of the types of statements that were coded into this theme:
· Respondents report a lack of trust in Administration
· Respondents concerned Administrators lack necessary experience / leadership skills to perform the job
· Respondents felt there was an opportunity for Administrators to improve their working relationships with faculty; more involvement of faculty in decision-making processes and more openness and transparency from Administrators
Administrative Staff
For staff, the ‘Issues with Senior Managers’ key theme was ranked first overall with 18 meaning units assigned (26.9% of total). The following concepts represent an overview of the types of statements that were coded into this theme:
· Respondents report issues with senior managers; recommend improved communication, more transparency and involvement in decision-making
· Respondents concerned that some senior managers lack the necessary knowledge and personal skills to lead effectively
· Respondents feel that changes are necessary in the organizational structure of Administration
· Respondents feel there are too few women in senior management positions
Largest Gaps between Importance and Satisfaction Ratings:
The difference between perceived importance rating and level of agreement in response to the questions in the QWL scale areas is another way to identify potential opportunities for improvement. Often the differences are almost all negative; meaning the rating of importance is almost always higher than the level of agreement, or satisfaction. The following QWL scale areas resulted in gap scores of greater than -30%:
• Respectful and Supportive Workplace
• Satisfaction with Senior Management
Lowest Rated QWL Areas Compared to the Metrics@Work Database:
Comparing the University organization's scale areas to the Metric@Work database also allows the ability to highlight areas where improvements can be made. In their experience, the consultants have found that differences of more than -5.0% between an organization's score for a scale area and the database average for that scale to be observably significant (though they again caution that this is not necessarily a statistically valid significance). The following graph shows driver areas that have scored observably lower than the database average:
14 out of 22 Driver Areas were below the average compared to over 100 organizations and over 50,000 respondents in Metrics@Work’s database.
5. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee
“Take the results of this survey seriously and take the necessary action.
If the results clearly indicate that change is needed,
then have the courage to make the changes.”
STU Workplace Climate Survey Participant, February 2011
Based on the key opportunities for improvement and the thematic analysis of commentaries as identified in the results of the climate survey findings as summarized in the previous section, the Advisory Committee recommends the following measures to improve the University’s workplace climate and structure.
1. Leading the Charge:Given the critical importance of tackling the concerns raised by the survey’s findings, the President in particular and senior management must be visibly seen as leading actions needed to improve the workplace climate and ensure that all management positions embrace these positive actions;
2. Review Management Team & Reporting Structures: Given thestrong consensus of the key weaknesses facing the organization and the number one areas for improvement (as identified by the climate survey participants and focus group sessions), the President should immediately undertake a review of the University’s existing management team and reporting structures to determine if they are appropriate and can lead the University’s workplace renewal into the future;
3. Professional Qualifications and Competencies:The university will strive to hire appropriately qualified and experienced personnel for administrative positions at all levels.
4. Equity in Hiring:The University must ensure there is equity in hiring for women, Aboriginal persons, members of visible minority groups, and persons with disabilities. A trained equity representative should sit on all hiring committees;
5. Code of Conduct: The university must implement a code of conduct that covers faculty, staff, and students.
6. Equity in Workload and Teaching Assignments: The university must strive to address equity in workload distribution across all academic and administrative units.
7. Fairness for Student Employees:the university must ensure that student employees have clear job descriptions, and are compensated equitably based on the nature of the work and their qualifications.
8. Assigning Responsibility & Measuring Performance:Further to recommendation # 1 (above), it is recommended that all management/supervisory/faculty oversight positions include actions in their annual work plans that support improving the workplace climate at the University. These positions will thus be evaluated yearly on how they specifically perform in meeting these objectives;
9. Ongoing Support & Continuous Improvement:Given the ongoing nature of improving the University’s workplace climate, it is recommended that the President assign a responsibility centre manager (possibly the Director of Human Resources & Faculty Relations or some other management position) with specific support duties relative to remedial action and continuous improvement;
10. Training, Mentoring & Orientation for all Employees:That recommendations five and six stemming from the Advisory Committee’s work with faculty focus groups related to training, mentoring and orientation of departmental deans, gender sensitivity and equity training for all staff and faculty, particularly for management positions be implemented. In addition, ongoing leadership training for senior management should be implemented as part of an ongoing process of continual improvement;
11. Equitable Recognition: That the University strive to recognize fairly the accomplishments and strengths of academic and administrative units in an equitable way. This should be done in a variety of ways that motivates and recognizes teamwork and spirit, innovation, initiative, creativity and excellence in a formal and informal manner;
12. Employee Development Program: Given the limited opportunities for career advancement in a small organization such as St. Thomas, the University should consider reassignment, secondments or short-term development opportunities for staff that have performed at a fully satisfactory level and have expressed a desire for career change or exposure during the annual performance review process. This might include developing new relationships with UNB, NBCC, the public, non-profit or private sector employers in the area. Administrative staff must be provided with opportunities to maintain best practices within their professional organizations;
13. Enhanced Organizational Communication: The University is strongly encouraged to explore means of enhancing organizational communication between and amongst all stakeholder groups. The practice of regular “town hall” meetings between the President and STU community, as started by Interim President Cochrane, is viewed by many as positive, but more formal and informal meetings between administration, faculty and students is also seen as desirable;
14. Enhance Wellness Initiatives: The University should take steps to enhance its existing wellness initiatives so that work/life balance is improved and employees feel more supported and respected in the workplace;
15. Policies and Procedures:The university must develop clear and accessible policies on all relevant workplace issues, and will devise procedures for implementing those policies.
16. Regular Employee Feedback:The University should consider undertaking another workplace climate survey in 2014 to determine the degree of improvement that has been realized. In addition, Human Resources should also conduct confidential exit surveys with all employees/faculty leaving the University as a means of monitoring progress and identifying issues requiring attention. A summary of the results should be shared with the President;
17. Security of Data: The data and reports collected as a result of the climate survey should be secured and kept confidential and destroyed after five years;
18. Future Role of the President’s Advisory Committee on Structure & Climate: The Advisory Committee is made up of a broad cross-section of the University community. As such, many different views and opinions were shared amongst its members. While improving the workplace climate and dealing with our challenges is very much a long-term effort, the Committee believes it has completed the initial phase of its work. We will leave it to the President to re-engage the group or another team of interested stakeholders as he/she sees fit. Our experience while serving on this committee has been interesting and at times enlightening. We will continue to be engaged in improving our workplace and management structures.
6. Conclusions
Articulating the strategic goals and objectives that support an organization’s vision are always more difficult than actually achieving them or having them become entrenched as part of the workplace “culture”. In this respect, St. Thomas University is no different than any other large and complex organization.
Examining St. Thomas University’s Strategic Plan (2005-2010),one finds the broad goal (Goal # 4), “ToEnhance the Living And Working Environment For All Members of the University” which is followed up with a more specific objective related to its workplace…(Objective 4.3.), “To foster a living and working environment that is caring, supportive, and respectful.” These goals and objectives and the University community’s efforts at achieving them were central to the work of the President’s Advisory Committee on Structure & Climate(Refer to Section 2 on the Advisory Committee’s mandate), and remain a focal point for the future prosperity and health of the University.
Taken together, the results of the Advisory Committee’s focus sessions with faculty last fall and the subsequent findings of the workplace climate survey conducted in March offer a snapshot of existing challenges for the University and its employees. It also offers an opportunity to take meaningful steps to improve the situation. The Advisory Committee believes we are at a crossroads and the opportunity for a positive change in workplace culture must be seized if the University is to reach its full potential, both academically and as an employer of choice.
With a new President starting in July, there is every reason for hope and optimism; however, this is tempered by the difficulty of the task ahead and the recognition of the ongoing sustained effort that will be necessary to put the University’s “climate” house in order. This challenge will be made much more manageable if all parties agree to work together. We have every reason to do so!