1. Mid Michigan Community College Prepared by President Christine Hammond March 31, 2016 PACE Survey Results 2015 - Summary

2. Administered through the National Initiative for Leadership & Institutional Effectiveness (NILIE). Measures employee satisfaction and perceptions. MMCC has participated in 2008, 2011, and 2015. The results identify trends among MMCC responses and comparisons to NILIE’s national and Midwest clients. To see the complete results see http://www.midmich.edu/______ PACE: Personal Assessment of the College Environment

3. Relies on the work of Likert and others regarding organizational effectiveness, employee satisfaction, and leadership. Results can be disaggregated by gender, age, seniority at the institution, and personnel categories. Based on overall survey response mean scores, organizations are placed along a continuum or systems from Coercive to Collaborative. Coercive (1-2) Competitive (2-3) Consultative (3-4) Collaborative (4-5) “In agreement with Likert, NILIE has concluded that Collaborative (System 4) is the climate to be sought as opposed to existing naturally in the environment….”…if the Collaborative System is the ideal, then this environment is the one to be sought through planning, collaboration, and organizational development” (Executive Summary, 2015 Report.) That is, we seek to be a Collaborative institution because such institutions have higher employee satisfaction, lower absenteeism, higher productivity and other positive benefits. Becoming a Collaborative institution is a worthy goal that can be pursued through planning, working together, and organizational development. It should not be assumed to come naturally. Survey Design

4. NILIE has used this model with more than 120 institutions and reports that most higher education clients have results that place them at the Consultative (System 3) framework. “At MMCC, the overall results from the PACE instrument indicate a healthy campus climate, yielding an overall 3.64 mean score or mid- range Consultative System” (Executive Summary, 2015 Report). However, MMCC scored statistically significantly below NILIE’s National Norm Base on 21 of the 46 items. Campus Climate

5. 38 The extent to which I have the opportunity for advancement within this institution. 2.96 Mean Score 53 The extent to which adjunct faculty feel they are included in communication at MMCC. 2.98 Mean Score Interestingly, adjuncts scored this item higher (3.21) than did Administrators (2.81) and Staff (2.44). MMCC scored in the (lower) Competitive range on two items

6. MMCC scored in the (higher) Collaborative range on three items 2 The extent to which my supervisor expresses confidence in my work.4.00 Mean Score 8 The extent to which I feel my job is relevant to this institution’s mission4.30 Mean Score 59 The extent to which I continue to learn in my work at MMCC4.10 Mean Score

7. The distribution of Mean scores shows 42 individuals who see the institution as Coercive or Competitive but 146 who see the institution as Consultative or Collaborative.

8. According to NILIE, “The term culture refers to a total communication and behavioral pattern within an organization.” “Climate refers to the prevailing condition that affects satisfaction (e.g., morale and feelings) and productivity (e.g., task completion or goal attainment) at a particular point in time….” “Climate is a subset of the organization’s culture”. NILIE relies on the work of Yukl (2002) in defining leadership as, “the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how it can be done effectively, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives” (p.7). Culture, Climate, and Leadership

9. MMCC 2015 Results: 202 of 388 employees (52.1%) completed the survey in November, 2015 Survey responses heavily weighted toward Administrators (91.5% of all administrators completed the survey.) and Full-time Faculty (63.5% of all Full-time Faculty completed the survey.).

10. Misalignment in distribution by full and part-time status The distribution was more skewed than in the 2011 report.

11. Institutional Structure3.42 Supervisory Relationships3.67 Teamwork3.73 Student Focus 3.87 (MMCC’s highest area but statistically significantly lower than that of the National Norm Base) Customized3.48 NILIE’s 4 Climate Factors with MMCC Overall Mean Scores Because the Customized questions were quite disparate, the aggregate score is of little statistical value.

12. Not surprisingly, overall scores varied by personnel classification and by demographic category. In general, overall Faculty satisfaction has improved since 2011 (for both full-time and adjunct). The lowest scores are among hourly staff. Variations among scores

14. Mean Scores related to Institutional Climate

15. Mean Scores related to Supervisory Relationships

16. Mean Scores related to Teamwork

17. Mean Scores related to Student Focus

20. 8The extent to which I feel my job is relevant to the institution’s mission4.45 to 4.30 40The extent to which students are assisted with their personal development3.84 to 3.66 48The extent to which MMCC provides a safe environment4.11 to 3.81 For most survey items, satisfaction seemed to decline between 2011 and 2015, as was true for the overall response rate to the survey. However, in only three cases were these declines statistically significant

21. 10The extent to which information is shared within the institution3.19 to 3.30 25The extent to which a spirit of cooperation exists at this institution3.47 to 3.49 26The extent to which my supervisor actively seeks my ideas3.68 to 3.70 36 The extent to which my work team coordinates its efforts with appropriate individuals 3.71 to 3.72 18 The extent to which student ethnic and cultural diversity are important at this institution 3.72 to 3.77 19The extent to which students’ competencies are enhanced3.84 to 3.86 23The extent to which non-teaching professional personnel meet the needs of the students 3.86 to 3.88 There were 7 items (15%) in which scores improved (although the improvement was not statistically significant)

22. Institutional Structure 38 The extent to which I have the opportunity for advancement within this institution (Observation: Staff perception was lower than adjunct perception) 2.96 15The extent to which I am able to appropriately influence the direction of this institution3.26 Supervisory Relationships 20 The extent to which I receive timely feedback for my work (Observation: Lowest scores were from Adjunct and Full-time Faculty – 3.29 and 3.30 respectively) 3.45 Teamwork (Observation: Lowest scores on both items were from FT Faculty) 3 The extent to which there is a spirit of cooperation exists in my department (Observation: Highest scores were from P/t staff) 3.70 14The extent to which my primary work team uses problem-solving techniques3.77 Student Focus 28The extent to which classified personnel meet the needs of students3.70 Our lowest scores in each category are shown below

23. 38 The extent to which I have the opportunity for advancement within this institution 2.96 49The extent to which individuals are held accountable for their job performance 3.06 NILIE identifies priority items for change for each of the personnel categories. Only two items were identified as priorities across all groups. These two items were priorities for each classification group.

24. 4The extent to which decisions are made at the appropriate level at this institution3.35 15 The extent to which I am able to appropriately influence the direction of this institution 3.26 32The extent to which this institution is appropriately organized3.31 44The extent to which my work is guided by clearly defined administrative processes3.28 53The extent to which adjunct faculty feel they are included in the College community2.99 55The extent to which MMCC is meeting its staffing needs3.07 There were six shared priority items for 4 of the 5 personnel categories

25. Statistical DifferencesMMCC Norm Base 5The extent to which the institution effectively promotes diversity in the workplace3.543.88 44The extent to which my work is guided by clearly defined administrate processes3.283.48 2The extent to which my supervisor expresses confidence in my work4.004.19 9The extent to which my supervisor is open to the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of everyone3.854.06 13The intent to which unacceptable behaviors are identified and communicated to me3.493.68 20The extent to which I receive timely feedback for my work3.453.68 21The extent to which I receive appropriate feedback for my work3.473.71 34The extent to which my supervisor helps me improve my work3.563.75 46The extent to which professional development & training opportunities are available3.513.79 Overall supervisory relationship3.673.82 14The extent to which my primary work team uses problem-solving techniques3.713.87 8The extent to which I feel my job is relevant to this institution’s mission4.304.42 17The extent to which faculty meet the needs of students3.803.99 18The extent to which student ethnic & cultural diversity are important at this institution3.774.08 28The extent to which classified personnel meet the needs of students3.703.88 31The extent to which students receive an excellent education at this institution3.944.16 35The extent to which this institution prepares students for a career3.924.15 37The extent to which this institution prepares students for further learning3.974.15 40The extent to which students are assisted with their personnel development3.663.93 42The extent to which students are satisfied with their educational experience3.743.93 Overall Student focus3.874.04 Overall3.643.76 NILIE compared MMCC responses to those from 87 other climate studies at 2 year institutions, administered since July, 2013. As shown below, MMCC responses were lower in many categories, including those items that were higher in our internal metrics.

26. 5Workplace Diversity 18Importance of student ethnic & cultural diversity 35Career preparation 40Personnel development 46Professional development & training opportunities NILIE also compared MMCC responses to those of Midwest 2-year institutions. MMCC responses were significantly lower than the Midwest group on the following items

27. The PACE Survey findings provide additional insights into the perspectives of our employees. As we consider these findings, we can consider our options – Take no action Clarify the responses through further study or through integration with other information Take actions to change Where do we go from here?

28. A first step at clarifying the PACE results occurred at the MMCC Professional Development Day on March 30, 2016. Using the Socrative software, we were able to gather comments and suggestions from participants. The profile of participants was: Clarification – A First Step

29. Participants provided many useful comments that are being categorized and processed. Their responses will help to prioritize possible improvements.

30. And further thoughts about communication…

31. Receiving timely feedback was a concern identified in the PACE Survey. PD Participants said…

32. Regarding formal evaluations …

33. Regarding informal feedback, participants said…

34. Verbal feedback is preferred…

35. Do you have any questions or suggestions? Please contact any member of the College Council.