Themes To Build On

Immediate Work Environment

In general, employees have relatively positive perceptions and experiences within their immediate work environment. While these feelings do not appear to extend to their perceptions of UMass Amherst as a whole, employees do report positive relationships with their co-workers and rate various aspects of the workplace climate favorably. The following graphs show comparisons of respondents' ratings of their immediate work environment to their ratings of the broader UMass community. In this section, the discussion focuses on ratings of the immediate environment (gray bars); the discussion of respondents' feelings about the broader UMass environment (black bars) occurs under the "Detracting Themes" section below. Employees view their co-workers as supportive (see gray bars on Figure 1). They also tend to rate the general and diversity climate of their immediate work environment positively (see gray bars in Figures 2 and 3).

Detracting Themes

Different Worlds, Different Experiences, and Different Perceptions

While there is relative unanimity with respect to individuals' feelings about their immediate work environment, on a much larger host of items there is substantial variability in responses between employees of different race/ethnicity, gender, job classification, and disability. The pattern of results suggests employees inhabit different worlds of perception and experience, based primarily on their role as one or another type of minority on campus. This is particularly telling in the very different ways varying groups of employees perceive the institutional climate and its commitment to CDSJ.

1. While employees rate their immediate work environment positively, employees are more critical of the overall UMass environment (see Figures 1 through 3). Ratings of general and diversity climate are lower (although it is important to acknowledge that the means are still on the more positive end of the scale for all items). In addition, the overall perception of how well employees treat each other on campus is less positive particularly for women and classified staff. As compared to their sense of respect from their co-workers, employees perceive much less mutual respect amongst employees around the campus as a whole, with classified staff and women particularly sensitive to this problem (Figure 1, black bars). Employees are also more critical of the general and diversity climates of the campus as a whole, viewing the overall UMass climate as less positive and supportive than they find their own work environments (Figures 2 and 3).

2. While some of the differences represented above appear relatively small (although statistically significant), the differences in individuals' actual, lived experiences with discrimination are substantial. For example, in a number of areas, ALANA and women are more critical of the UMass environment than males and whites. Women and all ALANA perceive UMass as less committed to issues of community, diversity, and social justice than men and white employees do. Women and some ALANA groups (Black, Latino, and Native American) also perceive more racial conflict. All ALANA groups report feeling more pressure to dress or act a certain way, and are more likely to disagree that employees of color are treated fairly. Asians perceive less respect from students.

3. Most compelling, a number of UMass employees experience some type of harassment or unfair treatment - those who are in minority or "targeted" categories and those in classified or instructor/lecturer positions are particularly likely to experience these things. The remainder of this section focuses on this issue.²

While there is a fair amount of variability among employees, each group of traditionally targeted individuals has experienced some type of unfair treatment or harassment. Between 10 percent and 22 percent report experiencing unfair treatment or harassment. (Between 7-16 percent of target group members have observed some sort of unfair treatment or harassment.) Interestingly, when it comes to experiencing unfair treatment, the percentage of individuals saying they have experienced unfair treatment is similar to, or in most cases higher than, those for observing unfair treatment. In other words, employees don't only report seeing it happen to those around them, they have experienced unfair treatment themselves.

While there is some variability, employees who are faculty, professional staff, or classified staff are more likely to observe and experience unfair treatment based on identity than are graduate student employees (compare Tables 2 and 3). The primary exception is that ALANA graduate students are more likely to experience unfair treatment because of language differences than are other ALANA employees. Note: An * indicates statistically significant differences (p = .05) with the other identity group (e.g., men, non-ALANA, etc.). In all cases where significant differences exist, the identify group results presented have higher percentages of experiencing unfair treatment.

Note: An * indicates statistically significant differences (p = .05) with the other identity group (e.g., men, non-ALANA, etc.). In all cases where significant differences exist, the identify group results presented have higher percentages of experiencing unfair treatment.

Note: An * indicates statistically significant differences (p = .05) with the other identity group (e.g., men, non-ALANA, etc.). In all cases where significant differences exist, the identify group results presented have higher percentages of experiencing unfair treatment.

Unfair treatment based on job classification is also fairly substantial (see Figure 4). Classified staff (29.6%) and administrators (23.9%) are more likely to have observed unfair treatment based on job classification than lecturers (14.6%), faculty (19.3%), or graduate students (13.5%). One-third of classified staff members and instructors/lecturers report experiencing unfair treatment based on job classification, as compared to 15 percent of administrators, 4 percent of faculty, and 13 percent of graduate students.

When employees' experiences with all types of unfair treatment or harassment are combined, a more dramatic picture emerges. While 73.2 percent of employees who are faculty, professional staff, or classified staff report no harassment, a quarter (26.8%) report experiencing at least one type of unfair treatment or harassment (because of gender, race, disability, job classification, sexual orientation, age, or religion) and 10 percent report experiencing more than one type (Table 4). Graduate student employee results are similar, with just under a quarter (24.5%) experiencing one or more types of

Individuals in traditional minority or targeted categories (i.e., women, ALANA, disabled, gay/lesbian/bisexuals) are more likely to report experiencing one or more types of unfair treatment or harassment than their counterparts (i.e., males, non-ALANA, non-disabled, heterosexuals) (see Figures 5 and 6).

When we compare number of experiences with unfair treatment or harassment by job classification, we see that classified staff and instructors/lecturers are those more likely to experience multiple forms of discrimination (Figure 7). Almost 40 percent of both classified staff and instructors/lecturers experience some type of unfair treatment or harassment - and about 10 percent or more of each group except faculty experience more than one type of unfair treatment.

Technology and Material Resources

The issues of technology and material resources emerged as significant detracting themes within the broader consideration of work environment. In open-ended responses to the survey and in focus groups, all of the comments about these issues pointed to problems, and most were linked to work environment. Here we report only on those concerns that were repeatedly expressed. Many respondents commented on a bureaucracy that seems needlessly complex and time-consuming. Sample comments include:

"Too much bureaucracy, too many regulations."

"The campus as a whole does not feel like a community. I have spent my entire adult life in educational institutions both large and small, and I have never encountered an administrative system so likely to confront me with petty bureaucracy and just plain surliness."

"Too much red tape at this university."

"The physical condition of the campus is a matter of shame to me."

"Buildings on campus that are not accessible - this is a disgrace."

"In my particular building, it is a matter of health, with staff made physically ill by poor air quality. No one should have to work under these conditions."

"PeopleSoft sometimes demands skills from classified staff and demands time that are not accounted for in job descriptions."

"Staff [are] demoralized by PeopleSoft."

² In the discussion that follows in this section we include some results from the survey of Graduate Student Employees. While we offer this information as suggestive of graduate students' experiences with unfair treatment, the results must be treated with caution due to the much lower response rate than was achieved for other groups studied here. See Appendix A: Study Methodology and Respondent Demographics.