Main navigation | Main content
Campuses:
These graphs are based on responses to statements that assessed faculty's confidence in the directions their respective departments and the University are heading.
Overall, faculty members had moderate confidence in the direction their departments and the university are heading. Faculty at the Crookston campus had slightly lower confidence in the direction the university was heading and also had slightly lower confidence in the direction their department was heading as compared to the other campuses. Overall, between 2004 and 2006, there does appear to be slight increases in overall confidence related to the direction the University is heading, but slightly lower confidence in the direction one's department/unit is heading.
These graphs are based on responses to statements that assessed faculty awareness of their role in the University's mission, their clarity in what is expected of them at work, and their level of knowledge regarding the Strategic Positioning Process. About 77% of faculty members express some level of awareness of how their job contributes to the mission of the University. Moreover, about 79% of faculty members report clarity regarding what is expected from them at work. About 88% of faculty have some information regarding the Strategic Positioning Process.
Faculty responded to a set of questions that examined the climate for specific groups of employees at the university. Faculty perceived the university climate to be largely favorable for different employee groups. The university was considered to have a favorable or very favorable climate for people of color (38%), people from different cultural customs (44%), people with different religious beliefs (42%), people with disabilities (48%), GLBT employees (52%), older employees (41%), women (56%) and men (64%). These percentages are fairly similar across both the survey periods of 2004 and 2006. For each category, a portion of respondents reported that they had no response or a neutral opinion.
Despite these general positive or neutral perceptions, within each category some percentage of employees did report that the climate was unfavorable or very unfavorable for specific employee groups. These percentages for specific groups are indicated in parenthesis for: people of color (22%), people from different cultural customs (16%), people with different religious beliefs (13%), people with disabilities (13%), GLBT employees (7%), older employees (13%), women (15%) and men (4%).
In addition to the overall ratings shown above, the pattern of results indicated that members of each group reported lower favorability for that group than non-group members. For example, women reported that the University climate for women was less favorable than men reported the University climate for women. Between the years 2004 and 2006, the university climate has remained fairly stable for each employee group.
| Source | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Faculty member in unit | 5.6 |
| Student | 4.8 |
| Supervisor in my unit | 4.8 |
| Other | 2.1 |
| Staff member in unit | 1.0 |
| Someone outside UMN | 0.8 |
| Employee not in unit | 0.7 |
| Unknown | 0.7 |
| What did they do? | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Said bad things about you | 9.2 |
| Did something to make you look bad | 8.7 |
| Other | 6.1 |
| Sabotaged your work | 5.4 |
| Lied to get you in trouble | 2.8 |
| Made an ethnic slur toward you | 2.5 |
| Threatened you | 2.5 |
| Made an obscene comment or gesture | 2.1 |
| Cursed at you | 1.5 |
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Other | 8.1 |
| My gender | 6.9 |
| My race/ ethnicity | 3.5 |
| My age | 3.1 |
| My sexual orientation | 1.3 |
| My cultural customs | 1.3 |
| My religion | 1.2 |
| My disability | 0.3 |
| My gender identity | 0.2 |
These charts are based on responses to statements that assessed workplace misconduct such as violation of law, workplace rules, or significant University policy.
A majority of faculty (85%) indicated that they had not experienced any significant misconduct within their departments in the last year. Nevertheless, about 15% of faculty did experience such problems.
Of those who reported experiencing workplace problems, 60% stated that they or someone else reported these problems to the University. About 32% of the problems were not reported. Of the faculty who reported these problems, 22% indicated that the University took appropriate corrective actions, and a majority of 63% stated otherwise.
In addition to questions about specific workplace events, faculty were asked about their perceptions of the University's mechanisms for dealing with workplace problems, such as the University's confidential reporting line for dealing with workplace problems. 59% of faculty members reported that they knew where to seek help for resolving workplace problems, but 20% reported that they did not. 24% of faculty members indicated that they did not believe that they would be protected from retaliation if they reported a suspected behavior compared to 50% of faculty who did not express such beliefs. A majority of faculty members (57%) reported that the University leadership demonstrated integrity and ethical behavior, while 24% indicated otherwise.
A set of questions asked faculty to respond to different characteristics of the University. This was designed to assess the perceived strengths and development areas for the University, and also serve as an indication of the University's culture. The results indicate that faculty members observe the University to be encouraging of research, high quality work, and teaching, among other dimensions. However, the University is reported to be low on its ability to encourage risk taking among employees, providing rewards and recognition for achievement, and in promoting a sense of a common University community. This is consistent with 36% of faculty members reporting that they most identify with their department or unit compared to 9% who identified with the University. The main reasons why faculty work at the University are the work tasks (66%), living in the community (57%), and their coworkers (54%).
| University of Minnesota Characteristics | Mean |
|---|---|
| Encourages excellence in research | 4.1 |
| Encourages high quality work | 3.7 |
| Operates with integrity and complies with ethical practices | 3.6 |
| Encourages excellence in teaching | 3.6 |
| Encourages mutual respect among all in the University community | 3.5 |
| Encourages innovation | 3.5 |
| Encourages continuous improvement | 3.5 |
| Encourages excellence in public outreach | 3.4 |
| Encourages individuals to be results oriented | 3.4 |
| Encourages high quality service | 3.3 |
| Promotes diversity of ideas, experiences, and people | 3.3 |
| Encourages collaboration and a team orientation | 3.2 |
| Shows a willingness to adapt and change | 3.2 |
| Provides rewards and recognition for achievement | 3.1 |
| Promotes a sense of a common University community | 2.8 |
| Encourages risk taking among employees | 2.5 |
| Area | Percentage |
|---|---|
| My department or unit | 36.1 |
| My discipline | 24.7 |
| My college | 9.9 |
| My occupation | 9.8 |
| University of Minnesota | 9.1 |
| My campus | 7.8 |
| Other | 2.7 |
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Enjoy my work tasks | 66.3 |
| Enjoy living in this community | 57.4 |
| Enjoy working with my coworkers | 54.1 |
| Good benefits | 48.5 |
| Job security | 43.9 |
| Enjoy the work environment | 39.1 |
| Believe in the U's mission | 38.8 |
| Feel loyalty to the U | 24.7 |
| Good pay | 24.0 |
| Enjoy working for my supervisor | 21.9 |
| Lack of job alternatives | 16.1 |
| Other | 10.9 |
Employee & Labor Relations
100 Donhowe Building, 319 15th Ave. S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455