Workplace Environment

In fall 2021 when the CCS was conducted, approximately 70% of UMass Amherst employees were staff members (N = 4483). One important context consideration that has implications for workplace inclusivity is the underrepresentation, relative to the population of Massachusetts, of Black, Latina/o/x, and Indigenous people among staff. Another is the gendered nature of organizational work units. Overall, the sex composition of staff was 53% women and 47% men. However, the composition of most administrative units was imbalanced (and is currently). For example, at the time of the CCS, 78% of Human Resources employees were women, as were 76% of Advancement staff, 69% of Research & Engagement staff, and 62% of staff in Student Affairs and Campus Life (SACL). In contrast, 69% of Information Technologies staff were men, as were 69% of Athletics staff, and 60% of staff in Administration and Finance (A&F). 

One of the most distinctive aspects of the campus context for staff is the heterogeneity of organizational roles. Staff members include groundskeepers, chefs, office managers, residence directors, administrators, academic advisors, maintainers, coaches, information technology specialists, police officers, procurement specialists, personnel officers, administrative assistants, engineers, electricians—to name a small fraction of the myriad staff roles. The vast majority of staff are represented by collective bargaining units (eight in total), and compensation levels vary substantially by position type. Formal and informal hierarchies based on unit/non-unit status, position, education level, and socioeconomic status can be a source of tension and division among staff. 

Year-round employment is another distinctive aspect of the campus context for many staff. Whereas most faculty have 9-month contracts, a majority of staff members are contracted to work throughout the full calendar year. Although most staff work standard daytime hours, many of those engaged in service roles – including custodial staff, residence life staff, police, and dining staff – work weekends and evening and/or overnight shifts. A few hundred staff members are University-designated “essential employees” who must report to work when the campus is officially closed. 

Although some staff positions entail routine movement about campus (e.g., police officers, groundskeepers, technicians), many staff members work in positions that require them to spend sustained time in particular physical locations on campus. Staff who work in managerial or professional positions (about one-third of all staff) are typically assigned an individual office, but a vast majority of staff members work in more communal settings that afford limited personal space and privacy. Some staff members venture out of their immediate work location routinely to attend meetings (although less so now that many meetings are held virtually), but others’ spheres of movement are much more constrained. The day-to-day work of most staff members involves considerable interaction with other staff members on their work team or in their office or unit. Given that the campus context for most staff work is both sustained/long-term and place-bound, members of this population may be invested in developing and fostering a campus climate characterized by mutual respect, inclusion, and belonging. 

In fall 2021, faculty comprised approximately 30% (N=1929) of UMass Amherst employees. One important context consideration is that domestic faculty members were (and are currently) predominately White, ranging from 60% in the College of Engineering to 81% in the College of Nursing. The underrepresentation of domestic Black, Latina/o/x, and Indigenous faculty members is a prominent aspect of the campus context for diversity and inclusion. 

The gendered nature of academic fields of study and their clustering within the nine discipline-based colleges and schools is another important aspect of the campus context for faculty. The distributions of women and men within seven of the nine the colleges/schools were quite disproportionate, which approximated national distributions within disciplinary clusters. (The College of Social and Behavioral Science and the College of Humanities and Fine Arts were fairly proportionate.) Overall, 47% of UMass Amherst faculty were women, but within the colleges/schools this percentage ranged from 20% in the College of Information and Computing Sciences to 94% in the College of Nursing.  

The designation of positions as either tenure system (59%) or non-tenure system (41%) is another distinctive aspect of the campus context for faculty. Faculty members in tenure-system roles are eligible to pursue tenure (and the job security it offers) whereas faculty not on the tenure track are not eligible for tenure. The extent to which this dichotomy undergirds hierarchies and impacts faculty work environments can vary among academic departments/programs. 

Compared to most staff, faculty exercise substantial control over their work environments.  Most faculty members have a private, campus-based office; and many have discretion about when and where they work. Consequently, most faculty have greater control over their own interfacing with the campus environment—including the amount of time they spend on campus—than do other categories of employees, particularly those whose work confines them to specific, physical locations, and set work schedules. 

For the undergraduate and graduate students with whom they interact through their teaching, research, advising, and mentoring, faculty members are principal representatives of both their academic departments/programs and the larger University. The institutional prominence of and value afforded to the faculty role, and the organizational longevity of this group of campus employees, position faculty members to be influential cultivators of an inclusive campus climate.  

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted the University to shift in March 2020 to remote learning, advising and support for most undergraduate and graduate students; remote teaching for all faculty and graduate student instructors; and remote work for most staff. Employees designated as “essential,” such as maintainers and police officers continued to work in-person on campus. Some staff, including many frontline workers (e.g., UMass Dining service staff) were placed on long-term, unpaid “furloughs.” And most University employees, including administrators, experienced the loss of three weeks of pay due to short-term furloughs enacted to counter significantly reduced institutional revenue. Only faculty were not subjected to furloughs; rather, some received additional compensation for converting the format of their courses from in-person to online. The University’s prioritization of faculty salaries during the period of remote operations prompted resentment among many staff, who felt devalued by what they perceived to be pronounced inequitable treatment. 

As documented by both national-level and campus-based research, the unprecedented and lengthy period of primarily remote work and learning was challenging for most staff and faculty for multiple reasons, including personal illness, caregiving for ill family members, the death of loved ones, childcare responsibilities, elder care responsibilities, social isolation, mental health struggles, learning curves associated with new technologies and pedagogies, online fatigue, children’s and teens’ struggles with remote instruction, economic hardships due to loss of earnings, and extra work demands related to the pandemic. This array of challenges impacted the singularly entwined work and personal lives of faculty and staff during the period of primarily remote operations that extended through the summer of 2021 and provided a complex backdrop for the Campus Climate Survey. 

At the discretion of campus leadership, the 2021 CCS was conducted during the first semester that students, non-essential staff, and most faculty resumed in-person activities -- albeit within a markedly different context of mask-wearing; social distancing; and “hybrid,” flexible, or entirely remote work for many employees. By this time, staff ranks had diminished considerably due to pandemic-prompted early retirements and separations: in fall 2021, A&F was down 238 employees, Academic Affairs was down 64, SACL was down 57, and Information Technologies was down 36. Therefore, another important aspect of the campus context for the CCS was increased workloads for many employees, including faculty members impacted by the loss of staff in their academic units (the total faculty population decreased by 10 from 2019 to 2021). Lastly, contract bargaining with the staff and faculty unions was well underway but not yet completed at the time the CCS was conducted. 

Unfortunately, as detailed in the CCS Background and Methods brief (https://www.umass.edu/diversity/background-and-methods) survey participation rates among two sizeable groups of employees were unacceptably low: only 10% of staff in Service/Maintenance (SM) roles and 19% in Skilled Crafts (SC) roles participated in the survey. Undoubtedly, these low participation levels stemmed, at least in part, from the severe understaffing that A&F was experiencing at the time the survey was conducted. 

Low participation among SM and SC workers negatively impacted the demographic representativeness of staff survey results for both the University overall, and for A&F specifically. Although these two groups of employees comprised 31% of all staff at the time of the survey, they represent only 8% of survey participants. And because this low participation was highly concentrated in one executive area, A&F staff are extremely underrepresented among survey participants. Ultimately, the CCS research team determined that representation of SM and SC staff in the data set was so inadequate that it compromised the accuracy of staff results for the University overall, as well as for A&F. Consequently, the staff results communicated here exclude A&F.  

As explained in the Background and Methods brief, the demographic characteristics of staff survey participants (excluding A&F) and faculty survey participants are closely aligned with those of their respective target populations. Survey participation rates were robust in Academic Affairs, and across the University’s other executive areas (minus A&F). That the CCS results reported here cannot reflect the experiences of staff University-wide is a shortcoming. However, the extremely low level of survey participation among SM and SC workers in A&F is anomalous, and a likely consequence of the challenging work environment experienced by these groups of employees in fall 2021. 

Staff and faculty were asked to rate their immediate work environment on the same ten 5-point “polar opposite” scales that were used to assess the campus climate (e.g., Unsafe-Safe, Unwelcoming-Welcoming, Disrespectful-Respectful; see the Campus Climate research brief for more information.) These ten items, once combined, form a robust composite measure* of work environment climate that facilitates exploration of potential differences in perceptions of work environment climate by social identity.  

Staff mean ratings of six of the ten climate aspects were positive, at 4.0 or above (the rating scale ranged from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most positive rating). The climate aspects staff rated less positively were Not Diverse-Diverse (3.1), Not Inclusive-Inclusive (3.8), Not Collaborative-Collaborative (3.9), and Weak sense of community-Strong Sense of Community (3.6) (see dashboard, below).  

For faculty, only two climate aspects received mean ratings of 4.0 or above: Unsafe-Safe (4.3) and Hostile-Friendly (4.0). The least positively rated climate aspects for faculty mirrored those of staff (Not Diverse-Diverse = 3.1, Not Inclusive-Inclusive = 3.6, Not Collaborative-Collaborative = 3.6, Weak sense of community-Strong Sense of Community = 3.4) (see dashboard, below).  

*Cronbach’s Alpha = .95 for Staff and Faculty 

To assess work environment quality, faculty and staff were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with eight statements relating to important aspects of their immediate work environment (e.g., appreciation, cooperation, resources – see dashboard, below). These eight items, once combined, form a robust composite measure* of work environment quality that facilitates exploration of potential differences in perceptions by social identity.  

Overall, vast majorities of both faculty (87%) and staff (82%) agreed (either somewhat or strongly) that they are clear on their role and responsibilities. Similarly, vast majorities of faculty and staff agreed that people seem to care about them, and that there is a spirit of cooperation. 

Among staff, 36% disagreed (either somewhat or strongly) that they are encouraged to grow in [their] position, and 33% disagreed that they have the resources [they] need to do well. Among faculty, 40% disagreed (either somewhat or strongly) that they have the resources [they] need to do well, and 31% disagreed that differences among people are valued. 

*Cronbach’s Alpha = .93 for Staff and .91 for Faculty 

The dashboards below allow for comparison of mean ratings of work environment quality by social identity aspects. Overall ratings for staff and faculty were nearly identical (3.0 and 2.9, respectively, on a scale ranging from 1 to 4). Among faculty, mean ratings were very similar across most social identity aspects. Exceptions are that Latinx faculty rated the quality of their work environment lower than did faculty of other racial/ethnic identities, and that faculty who have a disability rated the quality of their work environment lower than did faculty who do not have a disability (see dashboards, below). Among staff, there is similar variation by role/job classification, disability, gender, and race/ethnicity. 

The first dashboard below illustrates for both staff and faculty the positive relationship between employees’ ratings of their overall experience working at the University (Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor) and their assessment of the quality of their work environment. Workers who rated their overall experience as Excellent had much higher scores on the work environment quality measure than did workers who rated their overall experience as Poor. The second dashboard depicts a similarly positive relationship between employees’ likelihood of recommending the University as a good place to work and their assessment of work environment quality. Workers who indicated they would be Very Likely to recommend the University have much higher scores on the work environment quality measure than do workers who indicated they would be Very Unlikely to recommend the University to others.

Likelihood of Recommending UMass

The dashboards below allow for comparison of mean ratings of work environment climate by social identity aspects. As illustrated, staff rated their work environment climate slightly higher than did faculty (3.9 vs. 3.7). Among staff, perceptions of work environment climate vary somewhat by disability status, race/ethnicity, gender, and role/job classification. For example, the mean rating for staff who have a disability is lower than that of staff who do not have a disability (3.6 vs. 4.0). Among faculty, perceptions of work environment climate vary by disability, gender, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation. For example, faculty who have a disability rated their work environment climate much lower than did faculty who do not have a disability (3.1 vs. 3.8). 

Lastly, staff (only) were asked to indicate the extent to which their supervisor pays attention to how people in their workplace are treated. Overall, 61% of staff indicated that their supervisor pays attention to employees’ treatment in the workplace To a Great Extent or To a Very Great Extent (see dashboard, below). Responses to this question varied modestly by social identity. 

Staff and faculty were asked to indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied they are with their ability (“so far this semester”) to balance their work priorities with their personal life priorities. Overall, 66% of staff and 58% of faculty indicated being somewhat or very satisfied with their ability to balance their work and personal life priorities (see dashboard below).  

Among staff, satisfaction with work-life balance varies by social identity, including employee role (see dashboard, below). For example, staff who identify as Trans, Nonbinary or Questioning were more likely than those who identify as Women or Men to report dissatisfaction. And staff who have a disability were twice as likely as those who do not to report being Very Dissatisfied. Satisfaction with work-life balance also varies by social identity among faculty (see dashboard, below). For example, faculty who identify as Men were more likely than Women and Nonbinary faculty to report being Very Satisfied. And Full Professors are less likely than faculty of other ranks to report dissatisfaction. 

Whereas staff and faculty were asked about the balance between their personal life and their work life, graduate student employees were asked about the balance between two different types of work -- their paid work as a graduate assistant and their academic work.  

Among the 69% of graduate student survey participants who indicated that they currently have a graduate assistantship, nearly three quarters (73%) said it was Somewhat Challenging or Very Challenging for them to balance their assistantship work with their academic work.  The dashboard below shows variation by some social identity aspects, including gender and disability.   

Graduate student employees who reported that it is challenging (either very or somewhat) for them to balance their academic work and their assistantship work were asked a follow-up question about underlying reasons. Graduate employees were presented with a list of ten potential reasons (developed from 2016 CCS results) and were allowed to select each that applied to them, personally.  

Overall, there were five reasons that one-fifth or more of all graduate student employees selected: 1) not having enough time (43%), 2) struggling with mental and physical health (36%), 3) difficulty managing time (27%), 4) working more hours than contracted (24%), and 5) family responsibilities (20%).  

Overall, majorities of both staff (69%) and faculty (67%) indicated that they Rarely or Never experience mistreatment at their campus job. For both populations, responses varied by social identity (see dashboards, below). For example, among both staff and faculty, those who identify as having a disability were much more likely than those who do not have a disability to report experiencing mistreatment Sometimes or Often (for staff 48% v. 28%; for faculty, 56% v. 30%).  

Staff and faculty who indicated that they experience mistreatment on the job were asked to share, in a follow-up question, whether they would describe the mistreatment they experience as bullying. Overall, 21% of staff and 27% of faculty indicated Yes, and 20% of staff and 21% of faculty indicated that they were Not Sure (see dashboards, below). Responses to this question varied by social identity for both faculty and staff. For example, 43% of faculty and 34% of staff who have a disability indicated that they would describe the mistreatment as bullying compared to 25% of faculty and 19% of staff who do not have a disability.