Faculty Academic Affairs Faculty Exit Survey FY 2012

Transcription

1 Faculty Academic Affairs Faculty Exit Survey FY 2012 May 2013 Final Report

2 Prepared by Institutional Research M. D. Anderson Cancer Center

3 Faculty Academic Affairs Faculty Exit Survey 2012 Submitted by: Marilyn Greer, Ph.D. Jaime Garcia M.A. Glenda Redworth M.S. Robert Armand, M.S. Institutional Research May 2013 Final Report

4 Acknowledgements We would like to thank Danna Kurtin, Ph.D., Associate Vice President for Faculty and Academic Affairs, and Carl Yao, Manager, System Analyst Services, Faculty Academic Affairs, for their support and assistance in conducting this survey. ii

5 Abstract Faculty Academic Affairs provides faculty relations and human resource services to faculty leaders, faculty, and administrative support staff for appointment, promotion, conflict resolution, and separation of faculty at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC). The purpose of this survey is to assess faculty perceptions of their experiences while working at MDACC. The outcome of the survey will be used to improve FAA s services for all MDACC faculty members. The following objectives are addressed in this report: 1) To determine the reasons for faculty leaving MDACC; 2) To determine faculty perceptions concerning their department; 3) To determine faculty perceptions concerning benefits; 4) To determine overall evaluation of MDACC; 5) To determine respondent demographics; and 6) To compare results from respondents who completed the Exit Survey in 2006/2007 with results from respondents who completed the Exit Survey in 2011/2012. There were 86 faculty members who exited MDACC from September 2011 to August 2012, of these, 30 completed the survey, resulting in a response rate of 34.9%. The first objective was to determine the reasons for faculty leaving MDACC. The top five reasons that respondents indicated as the primary factor for their decision to leave MDACC are as follows: greater career opportunity; departmental leadership; personal reasons; retirement; and lack of promotion. When asked what they liked about being a faculty member at UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, over half of the respondents indicated the following reasons: multidisciplinary approach to treatment of cancer; and ability to do research. When respondents were asked what they disliked about being a faculty member at UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, the majority indicated one of the following reasons: non-supportive environment, or some reason other than what was on the survey such as hostile work environment created by chair or department, lack of support from department chairperson, and lack of connection between upper administration and faculty. Over half of the respondents selected career opportunity (86.2%) and reputation of MD Anderson Cancer Center (55.2%) as factors contributing to their accepting a position with MDACC. Additionally, 60.7% of the respondents accepted their new position in an academic institution. The second objective was to determine faculty perceptions concerning their department. Faculty members were asked to rate aspects of their Chairman/Departmental Administration and their Chairman s performance. There were four areas with combined responses of very poor and poor at or above 25% which included: resolves complaints and grievances; fosters an atmosphere of cooperation; encourages feedback/welcomes suggestions; and exhibits willingness to admit and correct mistakes. When respondents were asked to rate their Chairman s performance in seven areas, there were four areas with combined responses of very poor and poor at or above 25% which included: assistance with career development; adequacy of feedback regarding your performance; providing opportunities for advancement; and recognizing your contributions to the department. Faculty members were asked to rate eight departmental issues. There were two areas with combined responses of very poor and poor at or above 25% which included employee morale in your department and teamwork in your department. Also, there were two areas with neutral response rates at or above 30%: the balance between time devoted to research and clinical service, and availability of competent nursing staff (if clinical). Respondents were asked what they perceived as critical issue(s) in faculty development/retention. Over 30% of the respondents indicated that the following areas were critical: better communication with Chairman/Supervisor; better leadership; more mentoring of junior faculty; more research collaboration; and more support for faculty development/research. The majority of respondents indicated their workload was either about right or varied, but acceptable. The third objective was to determine faculty perceptions concerning benefits. Of the benefits listed, seven were rated as either very good or good by over 75% of the respondents and are as follows: iii

6 disability insurance; health insurance; life insurance; retirement plan; savings plan; paid holidays; and paid vacations. Salary was rated as either very good or good by 70.0% of the respondents. The fourth objective was to determine the overall evaluation of MDACC. The majority of respondents, 76.6%, indicated they would rate their overall experience at MDACC as either very good or good. The majority of respondents, 60.1%, would also either strongly recommend or recommend MDACC to faculty seeking employment. The fifth objective was to determine respondent demographics. Approximately 50% or more of the respondents indicated their total years of service (including all prior years of service) at MDACC as five or more years (85.2%), while 53.5% indicated they were primarily working in a research area, and 75.0% were male. The sixth objective was to compare results from respondents who completed the Exit Survey in 2006/2007 with results from respondents who completed the Exit Survey in 2011/2012. The average rating for Chairman/Departmental Administration decreasing by 31 percentage points from 2006/20007 to 2011/2012, and decreased by 24 percentage points among the average ratings of Chairman s performance areas during the same time period. Overall, faculty exiting the institution in 2011/2012 appeared less satisfied with their Chairman/Department Administration, Chairman s performance, department, and overall evaluation than respondents exiting in 2006/2007. The response rate of 34.9% for respondents from September 2011 to August 2013 may not reflect the perceptions of all faculty members who exited MDACC during this time frame. Areas for concern are those with responses of very good and good less than 50% and were regarding respondents Chairman/Departmental Administration: exhibits willingness to admit & correct mistakes; fosters an atmosphere of cooperation; and resolves complaints and grievances. Areas of concern related to Chairman s performance included assistance with career development and providing opportunities for advancement. We encourage Faculty Academic Affairs to continue to work on increasing participation in this very important evaluation process for the purpose of increasing institutional effectiveness in addressing faculty concerns. iv