4. Management Practices

The Survey of Employee Attitudes and Experiences and focus groups with classified staff and women faculty included a number of questions related to supervision and to management practices and policies, both at the local level of departments and on through to senior administration. They relate both to workplace environment and to management decisions that affect personnel.

Theme To Build On

Quality of Day-to-Day Supervision

Employees generally rate the quality of day-to-day supervision they receive from their immediate supervisors positively. They indicate that they receive recognition from their supervisors when they do a good job, that supervisors address inappropriate behavior, and that supervisors communicate the importance of valuing diversity. On a scale of 1 to 4, where 4 is "most positive," the mean response is 3.15, with no significant differences across employee groups. A professor in the Focus Group of Women Faculty spoke of the importance of having a dean who leads both by setting an example and expecting others to follow suit.

Detracting Themes

Different Perspectives on Quality of Supervision

Satisfaction with the quality of supervision varies significantly by gender within college/unit, indicating the need for follow-up on the specific data for each college/academic affairs unit. For instance, within both the Graduate School and Natural Sciences and Mathematics, females indicate less satisfaction with the quality of supervision than do males. In contrast, within Public Health and Health Sciences, males indicate less satisfaction than do females.

In focus groups, participants also spoke of specific situations where supervisors tolerated inequities or unacceptable behaviors. Female faculty perceive a double standard still operating. One female faculty member spoke of the failure of a department chair to take responsibility for addressing salary inequities between male and female assistant professors. Participants in the focus group also spoke of chairs/heads who implied or stated overtly that untenured female faculty should avoid too many family demands, including having children, that could distract them from their research. Another spoke of the positive case of having a dean who sets a positive example and makes very clear that social justice and equity are valued and that neither overt nor subtle discrimination will be tolerated. The suggestion was made that items related to social justice and equity be included in the evaluation of managers.

This suggestion relates to a comment on "problem areas" from the Affirmative Action Plan 2001-02:

Often diversity related problems involve supervisory relationships. The Administration and Finance executive area has made it an expectation of performance that all its supervisory staff participate in the core level of the Supervisory Leadership Development Program. However, unless the rest of the campus follows this lead, it is unlikely that supervisors will be able to effectively supervise a diverse workforce and the problem of 'toxic supervision' as identified in the Ombuds Office report, will not be rectified (58).
In regard to training, one participant in the Focus Group of Women Faculty pointed out that a department head who made inappropriate comments to her about having children and whose behavior was inappropriate toward her had attended one of the Sexual Harassment workshops.

Overall Work Satisfaction

Employees rate their overall work satisfaction less positively than quality of supervision. That is, they are less likely to agree that they know what is expected of them at work, that their job description accurately describes their duties, and that they get the training and/or professional development they need to support them in doing their jobs. The mean response of 2.86 across all job classifications indicates that employees tend to disagree somewhat with the statement "Overall, I am satisfied with my job." Notably, female faculty indicate less satisfaction than do female administrators, and female instructors less satisfaction than female faculty. Similarly, male classified staff members indicate less satisfaction than male administrators.

"Job Creep"

A significantly higher number of classified staff members among all groups perceive that their job description does not adequately describe their duties, and that they are asked to take on responsibilities that are not in their job descriptions. In the focus groups, classified staff pointed to two problems. One is "job creep," having additional duties assigned to them. The other is frustration when faculty and professional staff ask them to do tasks that are not part of their jobs.

Lack of Commitment to CDSJ Goals

Open-ended responses to the survey include many from employees who are critical of the lack of commitment from senior administrators to CDSJ goals, particularly in developing community. They also convey a general sense of being demoralized. Sample comments include:

"In general, morale is strong within my unit but we feel totally unsupported by the people above us."

"Is UMass administration committed to these issues?"

"Support and encouragement from upper level University administration is lacking. Again, substance is important here. Nobody believes promises anymore; especially after the legislature is not funding [the] contracts."

Failure to Fund Contracts

The failure to fund contracts also came through strongly in the open-ended responses and focus groups with classified staff members. Asked to recommend one thing that could improve UMass, both focus groups said "fund our contracts."