Employee Culture & Climate Survey 2024

The 2024 Employee Culture & Climate Survey from the Broad College of Business at Michigan State University.

2024 Eli Broad College of Business Employee Climate and Culture Survey

Conducted on Behalf of

The Eli Broad College of Business at Michigan State University

The Office for Survey Research Instute for Public Policy and Social Research Michigan State University

Table of Contents Overview and Methodology..........................................................................................................................................5 Populaon ................................................................................................................................................................5 Table 1. Demographic Profile of Respondents Using Instuonal Data...............................................................6 Table 2. Demographic Profile of Respondents Using Self-Reported Data ............................................................7 Data Collecon .........................................................................................................................................................8 Chart 1. Surveys Completed by Each Week During the Data Collecon Period...................................................8 Interpretaon of Tables ............................................................................................................................................8 Results ...........................................................................................................................................................................9 Sasfacon with Climate and Environment..............................................................................................................9 Table 3.1. Sasfacon with Climate/Environment at Michigan State University and Broad College .................10 Table 3.2 Sasfacon with Climate/Environment at Michigan State University and Broad College by Gender Identy, Sexual Identy, Race Ethnicity, Employee Group and Years of Service ................................................10 Paired Adjecve Comparison..................................................................................................................................11 Table 4.1 – Adjective Comparisons....................................................................................................................13 Table 4.2. Adjective Comparisons by Gender Identity, Race-Ethnicity, Sexual Identity, Employee Group and Years of Service..................................................................................................................................................14 College Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Aspects and Sense of Belonging ...............................................................15 Table 5.1 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Posive Framed Items) .............................................18 Table 5.1.1 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Posive Framed Items) by Gender Identy, Sexual Identy, Race-Ethnicity, Employee Group, and Years of Service........................................................................19 Table 5.2 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Negave Framed Items)............................................22 Table 5.2.1 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Negave Framed Items) by Gender Identy, Sexual Identy, Race-Ethnicity, Employee Group, and Years of Service........................................................................23 Meaningful Interacons .........................................................................................................................................24 Table 6.1. Meaningful Interacons with Others (Somemes-Very Oen) ........................................................25 Table 6.2. Meaningful Interacons with Others (Somemes-Very Oen) by Gender Identy, Sexual Identy, Race-Ethnicity, Employee Group and Years of Service.......................................................................................26 Employee Experiences with Bias/Discriminaon Events ........................................................................................27 Chart 2. Percentage Experiencing Discriminaon Overall and by Demographic Group.....................................28 Types of Bias/Discriminaon Experienced..............................................................................................................28 Table 8.1. Type and Frequency of Bias/Discriminatory Events Experienced......................................................29 Table 8.2. Demographic Group Experiencing Highest Percentage of Each Form of Bias/Discriminaon...........31 Table 8.3. Type and Frequency of Bias/Discriminatory Events Experienced by Gender Identy, Sexual Identy, Race-Ethnicity, Employee Group, and Years of Service......................................................................................32 Number of Different Forms of Bias/Discriminaon Experienced ...........................................................................33

Chart 3. Mean Number of Different Forms of Bias/Discriminaon Experienced Overall and by Demographic Group. ................................................................................................................................................................33 Academic Acvies Engaged as Part of Dues and Responsibilies ......................................................................33 Table 9.1. Acvies Engaged in as Part of Dues and Responsibilies ..............................................................34 Table 9.2 Acvies Engaged in as Part of Dues and Responsibilies by Gender Identy, Sexual Identy, Race- Ethnicity, Employee Group and Years of Service................................................................................................35 Table 10.1. Acvity Valued by Department/Unit ..............................................................................................37 Table 10.2. Acvity Valued by Department/Unit by Gender Identy, Sexual Identy, Race-Ethnicity, Employee Group and Years of Service. ...............................................................................................................................37 Department/Unit Fairness and Equity ....................................................................................................................38 Table 11.1. Department/Unit Fairness and Equity .............................................................................................39 Table 11.2. Department/Unit Fairness and Equity by Gender Identy, Sexual Identy, Race-Ethnicity, Employee Group and Years of Service. ..............................................................................................................40 Results Comparison between 2022 and 2024 .............................................................................................................41 Sasfacon with Climate and Environment............................................................................................................41 Chart 4. Sasfacon with Climate/Environment: 2022 – 2024 Comparison......................................................41 Paired Adjecve Comparison..................................................................................................................................42 Chart 5. Adjective Comparisons : 2022 – 2024 Comparison..............................................................................42 College Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Aspects and Sense of Belonging ...............................................................43 Chart 6, College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Posive Framed Items): 2022 – 2024 Comparison ......43 Chart 7. College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Negave Framed Items): 2022 – 2024 Comparison ....44 Meaningful Interacons .........................................................................................................................................45 Chart 8. Meaningful Interacons with Others (Somemes-Very Oen): 2022 – 2024 Comparison..................45 Employee Experiences with Bias/Discriminaon Events .......................................................................................46 Chart 9. Type of Bias/Discriminatory Events Experienced: 2022 – 2024 Comparison .......................................47 Acvies Engaged as Part of Dues and Responsibilies.......................................................................................47 Chart 10. Acvies Engaged in as Part of Dues and Responsibilies: 2022 – 2024 Comparison.....................48 Chart 11. Acvity Valued by Department/Unit: 2022 – 2024 Comparison........................................................49 Department/Unit Fairness and Equity ....................................................................................................................49 Chart 12. Department Fairness and Equity: 2022 – 2024 Comparison .............................................................50 Overall Summary .........................................................................................................................................................50 Appendix A: Quesonnaire .........................................................................................................................................54

Overview and Methodology In the fall of 2024, Michigan State University’s Eli Broad College of Business invited all current employees, faculty, academic staff, university support staff, and students to evaluate the climate and culture within the college. This report focuses on the results of the employee survey. The data collecon instrument used in 2024 was based on the instrument used in 2022 1 . While efforts were made to maintain the same quesons for comparison between the two me periods, slight changes in wording and queson structure were incorporated in 2024 to beer meet the needs of the college. In the secon of this report that compares the 2022 and 2024 results, any deviaons in queson wording or structure are noted. The full version of the survey instrument can be found in Appendix A. The data collecon instrument contained the following secons: • Introducon and Informed Consent • Climate and Environment – 34 quesons • Bias Incidences – 19 quesons • Department/Unit Climate – 15 quesons • Climate Feedback – 3 open-ended quesons| • Demographics – 8 quesons. Populaon The survey was administered to 351 Eli Broad College of Business employees, which included 83 academic staff, 172 faculty, 73 APA/APSA 2 , and 23 Clerical/Technical using a web-based data collecon plaorm. All data was submied anonymously. Table 1 displays the demographic profile of The Eli Broad College of Business employees based on instuonal data. This informaon is ulized to evaluate how representave the collected data is of the overall populaon. A negave value for the difference means that the group was underrepresented and a posive value for difference means that the group was overrepresented. The data slightly overrepresents females by 8.4%, academic staff by 7.3%, and APSA/APA by 6.6%. Conversely, it underrepresents faculty by 12.1%. However, the data is highly representave of the populaon in terms of race- ethnicity and department/unit.

1 The 2022 study was conducted by SoundRocket,LLC. 2 APA is the Administrave Professional Associaon and APSA is the Administrave Professional Supervisor Associaon.

Table 1. Demographic Profile of Respondents Using Instuonal Data

Over/Under Representation

Respondents

Population

Characteristics and group

Female

97 71

57.7% 42.3%

173 178

49.3% 50.7%

8.4% -8.4% 0.0% -2.6% 0.0% 0.4% 2.2% 7.3%

Male

American Indian or Alaska Native

0.6%

Asian

20 12

11.9%

51 25

14.5%

Black or African American

7.1% 3.0%

7.1% 2.6%

Hispanic

White

130

77.4% 31.0% 36.9% 27.4%

264

75.2% 23.6% 49.0% 20.8%

Academic Staff

52 62 46

Faculty

172

-12.1%

APA/APSA

73 23

6.6% -1.8% -7.2% -0.3% 2.7% 1.4% 0.9% 3.5% 0.1% -0.3% -4.7% 0.4% 6.2% -0.3% -5.5% -1.9% -4.0% 1.7% 0.7% -0.3% -0.4% 2.7%

CT Reg

4.8%

6.6%

Fixed Term

31.5%

136

38.7%

Roll/Fixed Cntr Tenure/Contin

0.0%

0.3%

61 20

36.3% 11.9%

118

33.6% 10.5%

Accounting and Information Systems Broad Residential Business Community Broad Undergraduate Academic Services Burgess Inst Entrepreneurship Innovation

1.8% 9.5% 1.8% 0.0% 9.5% 9.5%

0.9% 6.0% 1.7% 0.3%

3 0

6 1

Communication

Department of Marketing

16 16 33

50 32 47 18 34 11 33 15

14.2%

Department Of Supply Chain Management

9.1%

Eli Broad College of Business Dean Executive Development Programs

19.6%

13.4%

8 7 2 9

4.8% 4.2% 1.2% 5.4% 6.0% 1.8% 0.0% 3.6% 9.5%

5.1% 9.7% 3.1% 9.4% 4.3% 1.1% 0.3% 4.0% 6.8%

Finance

International Business Center

Management MBA Program

Multicultural Business Programs

3 0 6

4 1

Natural Science Dean

Russell Palmer Career Management Center

14 24

The School of Hospitality Business

Table 2 shows respondents’ self-reported demographics. For analysis purposes, self-reported data was used for gender identy, race-ethnicity, and sexual identy. If there was no self-reported data for gender identy or race-ethnicity (respondent chose not to answer the queson), instuonal data was used for those cases. Instuonal data was used for analysis for employee group and years of service. To protect the confidenality of employees and for analysis, self-reported gender identy was collapsed from 10 categories to three categories: Women, Men, and Another identy. Employees who indicated a gender identy other than Man or Women (including those that choose Man or Woman along with another identy) were included in the Another Identy category. Because of the small percentage of employees who idenfied with another gender, 4.2%, no separate analysis was done for this group. Sexual identy was condensed from eleven categories into two: LGBTQIA2S+ and straight. For race, the categories were simplified into two groups for analysis: White and BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color). Respondents who indicated a race or ethnicity other than White, including those who idenfied as both

White and another race or ethnicity, were classified under the BIPOC category. Table 2. Demographic Profile of Respondents Using Self-Reported Data Characteristics and group

CT Staff

4.8%

APA/APSA Staff

42 42 22 34 13

28.6% 28.6% 15.0% 23.1%

Position

Academic Specialist Fixed Term Faculty Tenure System Faculty

Yes No Yes No Yes No

8.2%

International

146

91.8% 13.6% 86.4%

Disability

133

3.8%

Armed Forces

152

96.2% 53.5% 42.3%

Woman

90 71

Gender Identity

Man

Another Identity

4.2%

LGBTQIA2S+

15.3% 84.7%

Sexual Identity

Straight

122

African American or Black

10 14

7.0% 9.9% 2.8% 0.7%

Asian

Hispanic or Latino/Latinx

4 1

Race - Ethnicity Identity

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

White or Caucasian

117

82.4%

Ethnic Minority Non-Specific

1.4%

White BIPOC

127

75.6% 24.4%

Race-Ethnicity (Collapsed)

Data Collecon Data collecon was conducted from October 1, 2024, to November 7, 2024. Reminder emails were sent on October 7, October 10, October 15, October 18, October 24, and October 29. Chart 1 shows the number of surveys completed during each week of data collecon. Slightly more than half, 51.2%, of completed surveys were received during the first two weeks of data collecon. Chart 1. Surveys Completed by Each Week During the Data Collecon Period

October 1-6

October 7-12

October 13-20 October 21-27

October 28 - October 30

During the data collecon period, 189 employees accessed the survey, with 168 subming completed surveys. resulng in a cooperaon rate of 88.8%. Five employees declined to give consent. The overall response rate for employees was 47.9%. Specifically, the response rates were as follows: 62.7% for academic staff, 36.0% for faculty. 63.0% for APA/APSA, and 34.8% for Clerical Technical. For this study, data collecon ulized the enre populaon rather than random samples. Tests of significance, such as Chi-Square and t-tests, are designed to assess whether the observed differences between groups during analysis exist in the populaon or are simply due to sampling error. Since no samples were used, there is no possibility of sampling error. Any differences between groups observed in this study's analysis reflect actual disparies in the populaon, provided that the overrepresentaon or underrepresentaon of any group does not bias the results. Interpretaon of Tables The tables displaying the overall results for each item in the quesonnaire show the percentage distribuon across each scale point, the total number of respondents who answered the queson, overall percent agreement or disagreement, the overall mean value, and the standard deviaon for each item where applicable. The means are calculated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 represenng the most negave (unfavorable) posion and 5 the most posive (favorable) unless otherwise noted. The mean score is oen used as a measure of central tendency, which represents the typical or most representave value in a dataset. The number of respondents may vary for each item, as some individuals may choose not to answer certain quesons. All quesons within matrices were presented to respondents in a random order to eliminate order effects.

The tables that show results by demographic subgroups indicate the mean score (and, in some cases, the percentage of individuals experiencing certain behaviors) for each subgroup, along with the maximum number of respondents within each category. When comparing groups based on demographic characteriscs, minor differences between groups should be ancipated and may simply result from non-responses. In contrast, larger differences are more likely to reflect actual variaons in atudes, percepons, and experiences between groups. For interpreng the mean scores on the Likert scale, the ranges are as follows: 1.00-2.49 indicates a negave atude, 2.50-3.49 reflects a neutral atude, and 3.50-5.00 suggests a posive atude, unless otherwise noted. Mean scores of 4.50 and above can also be considered very posive, while scores of 1.50 and below are viewed as very negave.

Results Sasfacon with Climate and Environment

Employees were inially asked to assess their level of sasfacon with the overall climate at Michigan State University and specifically within the college using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represented "very dissasfied" and 5 represented "very sasfied." As shown in Table 3.1, the percentage of employees who reported being sasfied or very sasfied was similar for both the university and the college, with sasfacon rates of 70.7% and 69.6%, respecvely. Addionally, the overall mean sasfacon scores were quite similar, measuring 3.72 for the university and 3.74 for the college. Results by demographic groups are shown in Table 3.2. When examining sasfacon by demographic group, the data revealed the following: • Women expressed greater sasfacon with the climate at both the university and within the college compared to men. • Employees who idenfied as LGBTQIA2S+ reported a higher sasfacon level with the college climate (mean score of 3.95) than with the university climate (mean score of 3.73). • Employees of color demonstrated lower sasfacon with the climate at the university (mean score for BIPOC: 3.45; White: 3.91) and within the college (mean score for BIPOC: 3.48; White: 3.97). • Faculty reported significantly lower sasfacon with the climate at both the university (mean score: 3.41) and the college (mean score: 3.45) compared to Academic Staff and Support Staff, whose rangs for both the university and the college were similar. • Sasfacon levels decreased as years of service increased, with employees having less than five years of service reporng the highest sasfacon, while those with 20 or more years of service reported the lowest sasfacon.

Table 3.1. Sasfacon with Climate/Environment at Michigan State University and Broad College

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied (3)

Very Dissatisfied (1)

Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the climate/environment at

Dissatisfied (2)

Satisfied (4)

Very Satisfied (5)

% Satisfaction

Mean

Std.Dev

3.0%

7.2%

19.2%

55.7%

15.0%

Michigan State University

70.7%

167

3.72

0.91

2.4%

12.5%

15.5%

48.2%

21.4%

Eli Broad College of Business

69.6%

168

3.74

1.01

Table 3.2 Sasfacon with Climate/Environment at Michigan State University and Broad College by Gender Identy, Sexual Identy, Race Ethnicity, Employee Group and Years of Service

Gender Identity

Sexual Identity

Race-Ethnicity

Employee Group

Years of Service

Less Than 5 Years (61)

20 or More Years (29)

Academic Staff (52)

Support Staff (54)

5-9 Years (34)

10-19 Years (41)

Woman (90)

Man (71) 3.65

Straight (122)

LGBTQIA2S+ (22)

White (127)

BIPOC (41)

Faculty (62)

Michigan State University

3.80

3.83

3.73

3.91

3.45

3.94

3.41

3.87

3.95

3.71

3.63

3.39

Eli Broad College of Business

3.77

3.69

3.86

3.95

3.97

3.48

3.92

3.45

3.89

3.93

3.82

3.66

3.38

Paired Adjecve Comparison

Respondents were presented with 15 pairs of opposite adjecves on a seven-point scale presented in sets of five (5) on three (3) consecuve pages of the survey which assessed specific aspects of the college. For each pair, they were asked to select a point between the two adjecves (negave on the le of the screen, posive on the right) that reflected how well they believed the adjecves described the culture and climate at the college. On this seven-point scale, any score above four is considered posive, while any score below four is viewed as negave. Mean scores closer to 7.00 are the most posive, while scores near 1.00 are the most negave.

Table 4.1 shows the overall results and Table 4.2 the results by demographic group.

Overall, all mean scores fell within the posive range of the scale (greater than 4.00) meaning respondents idenfied more with the posive adjecve than the negave adjecve, but none exceeded 5.52. The majority of scores (nine out of the 15) ranged between 5.00 and 5.52, while the remaining six scores fell between 4.38 and 4.98. Employees rated the college most posively on the following items: "Hosle: Friendly" with a mean score of 5.52, (meaning they view the college as being more friendly than hosle.), "Unwelcoming: Welcoming" with a mean score of 5.42, and "Homophobic: Queer Posive" with a mean score of 5.38. The items with the lowest mean scores were "Compeve: Cooperave" at 4.55, "Individualist: Collaborave" at 4.47, and "Elist: Non-Elist" at 4.38.

Findings among demographic groups include:

• Both women and men rated "Hosle: Friendly" the highest, with mean scores of 5.53 and 5.49, respecvely. Women rated "Elist: Non-Elist" the lowest at 4.23, while men rated "Individualist: Compeve" the lowest at 4.24. • The largest difference between women and men was on the item "Sexist: Gender Inclusive," with men perceiving the college as more gender-inclusive (5.39) than sexist, compared to women’s rang of 4.69, resulng in a 0.70-point difference. • Employees who idenfied as LGBTQIA2S+ had the highest mean score on the item "Unsupporve: Supporve" at 5.77, and their lowest was on "Elist: Non-Elist," with a score of 4.09. This also represented the lowest mean score for employees who idenfied as straight, which was 4.57. The item with the largest difference between the two groups was on "Transphobic: Trans-Inclusive," with 0.67-point difference.

• Overall, mean scores for BIPOC employees were lower than those for white employees.

• BIPOC employees rated "Homogeneous: Diverse" the lowest at 4.15 and "Hosle: Friendly" the highest at 5.05, while white employees rated "Hosle: Friendly" the highest at 5.67. The largest difference in mean scores between the two groups was on the item "Homogeneous: Diverse," 0.80-point difference. • Across all 15 items, university support staff were the most posive, achieving the highest mean scores on 11 of the 15 items. Faculty had the highest mean scores on the remaining four items. • The highest mean score for university support staff was on "Hosle: Friendly" at 5.80, while faculty had the highest mean score for "Transphobic: Trans-Inclusive" at 5.59, and academic staff the highest, 5.47, on "Unwelcoming: Welcoming."

• The lowest mean score among the three employee groups was given by faculty for the item "Individualisc: Collaborave," which was 3.92. This was one of two mean scores across all items and demographic groups that fell into the negave range of the scale. • Employees with less than five years of service rated "Disrespecul: Respecul" the highest. Those with five to nine years of service rated "Ableist: Accessible" the highest, while employees with ten or more years of service rated "Hosle: Friendly" the highest. • As years of service increased, mean scores generally decreased. Employees with less than five years of service had the highest mean scores on 13 of the 15 measurements, whereas those with 20 or more years of service had the lowest mean scores on 14 of the 15 items. This group's mean score on "Compeve: Cooperave" was 3.93, which fell into the negave range of the scale and only one of two to fall below the midpoint.

Table 4.1 – Adjective Comparisons

Rating

Mean

Std.Dev

2.4%

3.6%

3.0%

12.7%

18.1%

29.5%

30.7%

Hostile: Friendly

166

5.52

1.49

0.6%

2.4%

6.6%

20.5%

19.3%

23.5%

27.1%

Racist: Anti-racist

166

5.34

1.41

2.4%

9.0%

14.5%

21.7%

20.5%

17.5%

Homogenous: Diverse

166

4.75

1.67

2.4%

3.6%

4.8%

15.6%

34.7%

23.4%

Disrespectful: Respectful

167

5.36

1.49

0.6%

3.0%

6.1%

16.4%

25.5%

23.0%

25.5%

Ableist: Accessible

165

5.34

1.39

2.4%

5.4%

12.0%

15.0%

24.6%

21.6%

19.2%

Contentious: Collegial

167

4.95

1.58

3.6%

7.2%

11.4%

13.9%

17.5%

22.3%

24.1%

Sexist: Gender inclusive

166

4.98

1.74

7.2%

10.8%

12.0%

19.8%

13.2%

22.2%

15.0%

Individualistic: Collaborative

167

4.47

1.83

4.8%

12.0%

10.2%

18.6%

21.6%

16.8%

16.2%

Competitive: Cooperative

167

4.55

1.75

0.6%

1.9%

4.9%

22.2%

18.5%

25.3%

26.5%

Homophobic: Queer Positive

162

5.38

1.37

4.8%

5.5%

9.1%

24.8%

26.1%

Unsupportive: Supportive

165

5.23

1.67

3.1%

4.3%

10.4%

12.3%

19.0%

27.0%

23.9%

Ageist: Age diverse

163

5.17

1.62

3.0%

5.4%

10.8%

24.1%

22.3%

31.3%

Unwelcoming: Welcoming

166

5.42

1.55

9.8%

10.4%

13.4%

15.9%

18.3%

16.5%

Elitist: Non-elitist

164

4.38

1.92

1.3%

3.8%

5.0%

27.0%

15.7%

25.8%

21.4%

Transphobic: Trans-inclusive

159

5.15

1.46

Table 4.2. Adjective Comparisons by Gender Identity, Race-Ethnicity, Sexual Identity, Employee Group and Years of Service

Gender Identity

Sexual Identity

Race-Ethnicity

Employee Group

Years of Service

Less Than 5 Years (61)

20 or More Years (29) 5.07 4.86 4.57 4.71 4.86 4.48 4.25 4.07 3.93 4.85 4.52 4.55 4.83 4.07 4.81

Academic Staff (52)

5-9 Years (34) 5.44 5.50 4.82 5.24 5.70 4.82 5.03 4.41 4.24 5.59 5.09 5.21 5.45 4.30 5.52

10-19 Years (41) 5.32 4.95 4.51 5.10 4.98 4.76 4.78 4.15 4.66 5.00 4.95 4.97 5.17 4.13 4.84

Woman (90)

Man (71) 5.49 5.39 4.75 5.34 5.43 4.83 5.39 4.24 4.36 5.27 5.17 5.21 5.39 4.56 5.17

Straight (122)

LGBTQIA2S +(22)

White (127) 5.67

BIPOC (41) 5.05

Faculty (62)

Support Staff (54)

Hostile: Friendly Racist: Anti-racist

5.53 5.36 4.78 5.37 5.29 5.01 4.69 4.61 4.63 5.48 5.22 5.14 5.41 4.25 5.15

5.67 5.51 4.87 5.52 5.40 5.13 5.10 4.64 4.65 5.48 5.36 5.33 5.54 4.57 5.31

5.77 5.09 4.64 5.64 5.05 4.86 4.86 4.45 4.59 5.32 5.77 4.95 5.77 4.09 4.64

5.45 5.10 4.35 5.33 5.06 5.08 4.67 4.57 4.57 5.00 5.35 4.86 5.47 4.20 4.71

5.33 5.38 4.75 5.16 5.47 4.71 5.15 3.92 4.23 5.47 4.78 5.27 5.21 4.51 5.59

5.80 5.54 5.13 5.61 5.46 5.11 5.07 5.02 4.91 5.65 5.61 5.33 5.61 4.43 5.09

5.90 5.74 4.93 5.90 5.64 5.41 5.38 4.97 4.98 5.75 5.87 5.59 5.90 4.77 5.29

5.53 4.95 5.52 5.50 4.99 5.03 4.58 4.55 5.50 5.40 5.27 5.59 4.47 5.25

4.78 4.15 4.88 4.85 4.83 4.80 4.15 4.56 5.02 4.73 4.82 4.90 4.12 4.85

Homogenous: Diverse Disrespectful: Respectful Ableist: Accessible Contentious: Collegial Sexist: Gender inclusive Individualistic: Collaborative Competitive: Cooperative Homophobic: Queer Positive Unsupportive: Supportive

Ageist: Age diverse

Unwelcoming: Welcoming

Elitist: Non-elitist

Transphobic: Trans-inclusive

College Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Aspects and Sense of Belonging

Employees were asked to express their level of agreement on a series of fourteen statements focusing on specific aspects of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), as well as factors contribung to a sense of belonging within the college community. Ten of the statements were framed posively, meaning that higher levels of agreement and mean scores closer to 5.00 indicate favorable percepons. Four statements were framed negavely, where agreement with the statement reflects unfavorable senments, and disagreement indicates a more favorable view. For these items, mean scores closer to 1.00 are favorable. For ease of reporng, the posive and negave framed items are reported separately. Table 5.1 shows the overall results for the posive framed items, and Table 5.2 the negave framed items. For the posive framed items, seven out of ten mean scores fell within the posive range of the scale. The levels of agreement for these items ranged from 60.7% to 73.2%. The item with the highest level of overall agreement, 73.2%, measured experiences in the college having a posive influence on professional growth. This item also had the highest mean score of 3.89 and the lowest percentage of overall disagreement at 11.3%. The next highest level of agreement, 72.6%, measured being treated with respect at the college. Conversely, the item with the lowest level of overall agreement was related to the college providing sufficient resources to support the success of a diverse faculty, which had a 44.0% level of overall agreement. This item also had the lowest mean score of 3.26 and the highest percentage of overall disagreement at 25.6%. Other items with low levels of overall agreement included the college's emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), with 50.3% overall agreement, and the ability of employees to find programs or communies where they felt a sense of belonging, which scored 53.0%. Two specific items addressed the sense of belonging at the college. The statement "I feel I belong at the Broad College of Business" received an overall agreement level of 67.3% and a mean score of 3.79. In contrast, the statement "I have found one or more communies or groups where I feel I belong at the Broad College of Business" had a 53.0% level of agreement and a mean score of 3.46. There were noceable differences in these items among demographic groups. Table 5.1.1 shows full results by demographic groups. Differences included: • Women had higher mean scores in six of the ten items compared to men. • The highest mean score for women was recorded for the item measuring being treated with respect in the college, with a mean score of 3.94. The lowest mean score for women was on the item assessing whether the college provides sufficient programs and resources to support the success of a diverse faculty and staff, which had a mean score of 3.14. This item also showed the largest difference between the two groups, with men having a mean score of 3.39 (a 0.25-point difference).

• For men, the highest mean score was also related to being treated with respect in the college, 3.79. The lowest mean score for men was on the item regarding the college placing appropriate emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), which received a score of 3.37. • Women reported a stronger sense of belonging at the college than men, with mean scores of 3.86 and 3.72, respecvely. However, men were more likely to indicate that they had found one or more communies or groups where they felt they belonged. • LGBTQIA2S+ employees provided considerably more posive assessments of these aspects of the college compared to straight employees. The differences in mean scores between these two groups ranged from 0.24 to 0.32 for LGBTQIA2S+ employees. These differences were on items measuring feelings of being valued, the college as a place to reach full potenal, opportunies for professional success, and experiences having a posive effect on professional growth within the college. • LGBTQIA2S+ employees were more likely to have found groups or communies within the college where they felt they belonged than straight employees. There was lile difference in mean scores between the two groups for the item measuring a sense of belonging. • BIPOC employees reported much more negave assessments than white employees across all items. For BIPOC employees, only one mean score fell into the posive range of the scale, with a score of 3.66 on the item measuring experiences in the college that had a posive effect on their professional growth. All other scores were in the neutral range, with two scores falling below 3.00: 2.66 for the item regarding sufficient programs and resources to foster the success of a diverse faculty and staff, and 2.85 for the item measuring whether the college is placing appropriate emphasis on DEI. • The largest differences in mean scores between BIPOC and white employees were found on items assessing the college's provision of sufficient programs and resources to foster the success of a diverse faculty and staff, which showed a 0.79-point difference, and the college's strong commitment to DEI, a 0.60-point. • University support staff recorded the highest mean scores on seven of the ten items. Their highest mean score was on the item measuring whether experiences in the college had a posive influence on their professional growth, while their lowest mean score was on the item regarding sufficient programs and resources to support a diverse faculty and staff. • Faculty rated the college's commitment to DEI and being treated with respect the highest, while their lowest rang was for the college placing appropriate emphasis on DEI. • For academic staff, the highest mean score was on the item assessing experiences in the college having a posive influence on their professional growth, with the lowest mean score on the item measuring the college placing appropriate emphasis on DEI.

• Employees with less than five years of service were the most posive across all items, while those with 10- 19 years of service generally provided more negave assessments for all but two items: "My experience at the Broad College of Business has had a posive influence on my professional growth" and "The Broad College of Business places appropriate emphasis on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion," with faculty scoring the lowest on these items.

Table 5.1 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Posive Framed Items)

Thinking about your experiences in the college over the past 12 months, please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements. I feel valued as an individual at the Broad College of Business.

Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)

Strongly Disagree (1)

Strongly Agree (5)

Disagree (2)

Agree (4) 37.5%

Std.Dev

% Agreement

Mean

3.0%

14.9%

16.1%

28.6%

66.1%

168

3.74

1.12

3.6%

9.5%

19.6%

38.7%

28.6%

I feel I belong at the Broad College of Business.

67.3%

168

3.79

1.07

The Broad College of Business has a strong commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. I am treated with respect at the Broad College of Business. The Broad College of Business is a place where I am able to perform up to my full potential. I have opportunities at the Broad College of Business for professional success that are similar to those of my colleagues. I have found one or more communities or groups where I feel I belong at the Broad College of Business. The Broad College of Business provides sufficient programs and resources to foster the success of a diverse faculty/staff. My experience at the Broad College of Business has had a positive influence on my professional growth. The Broad College of Business places appropriate emphasis on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

4.8%

11.9%

20.8%

38.7%

23.8%

62.5%

168

3.65

1.11

3.0%

10.7%

13.7%

41.7%

31.0%

72.6%

168

3.87

1.06

5.4%

11.3%

20.8%

34.5%

28.0%

62.5%

168

3.68

1.15

4.8%

18.5%

16.1%

38.1%

22.6%

60.7%

168

3.55

1.17

4.2%

17.9%

25.0%

33.3%

19.6%

53.0%

168

3.46

1.12

7.1%

18.5%

30.4%

29.8%

14.3%

44.0%

168

3.26

1.13

3.0%

8.3%

15.5%

42.9%

30.4%

73.2%

168

3.89

1.03

5.4%

15.0%

29.3%

40.1%

10.2%

50.3%

167

3.35

1.03

Table 5.1.1 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Posive Framed Items) by Gender Identy, Sexual Identy, Race-Ethnicity, Employee Group, and Years of Service Gender Identity Sexual Identity Race-Ethnicity Employee Group Years of Service

Less Than 5 Years (61)

20 or More Years (29)

Academic Staff (52)

5-9 Years (34)

10-19 Years (41)

Woman (90)

Man (71)

Straight (122)

LGBTQIA2S+ (22)

White (127)

BIPOC (41)

Faculty (62)

Support Staff (54)

I feel valued as an individual at the Broad College of Business. I feel I belong at the Broad College of Business. The Broad College of Business has a strong commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. I am treated with respect at the Broad College of Business. The Broad College of Business is a place where I am able to perform up to my full potential. I have opportunities at the Broad College of Business for professional success that are similar to those of my colleagues. I have found one or more communities or groups where I feel I belong at the Broad College of Business. The Broad College of Business provides sufficient programs and resources to foster the success of a diverse faculty/staff. My experience at the Broad College of Business has had a positive influence on my professional growth. The Broad College of Business places appropriate emphasis on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

3.76

3.69

3.82

4.14

3.86

3.37

3.62

3.66

3.94

4.00

3.82

3.46

3.52

3.86

3.72

3.89

3.95

3.91

3.41

3.83

3.76

3.80

3.95

3.88

3.61

3.62

3.63

3.66

3.69

3.64

3.80

3.20

3.44

3.77

3.70

3.84

3.85

3.32

3.45

3.94

3.79

3.97

4.09

3.98

3.51

3.85

3.77

4.00

4.18

3.85

3.66

3.62

3.73

3.61

3.75

4.00

3.82

3.27

3.58

3.68

3.80

4.07

3.65

3.37

3.45

3.60

3.52

3.61

3.86

3.61

3.37

3.38

3.60

3.67

3.93

3.41

3.29

3.31

3.41

3.55

3.57

3.45

3.57

3.15

3.38

3.44

3.57

3.62

3.53

3.32

3.28

3.14

3.39

3.29

3.36

3.45

2.66

3.02

3.44

3.28

3.51

3.15

3.00

3.21

3.93

3.77

3.98

4.23

3.97

3.66

3.98

3.69

4.04

4.20

3.94

3.66

3.55

3.29

3.37

3.40

3.50

3.51

2.85

3.15

3.34

3.54

3.56

3.44

3.17

3.00

The statements framed negavely focused on the following themes: leaving the college, others in the college valuing their opinions, the percepon of needing to work harder than peers to feel valued, and whether the college places too much emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). For these aspects, higher levels of disagreement and mean scores closer to 1.00 are considered posive. Overall results are shown in Table 5.2, The item with the highest level of overall disagreement was "I have considered leaving the Broad College of Business because I felt isolated or unwelcome," with 63.5% of respondents disagreeing to some extent. The mean score for this item was 2.26. The item with the lowest level of disagreement focused on the percepon of working harder than others to be valued equally in the college. Only 39.3% of employees disagreed with this statement, while nearly the same percentage, 36.3%, agreed with it, and 13.1% strongly agreed. Slightly more than half, 56.5%, disagreed with the statement that they felt others in the college did not value their opinions. A similar percentage, 56.3%, disagreed that the college was placing too much emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). There were noceable differences among demographic groups at the college regarding their experiences. Full results by demographic group are shown in Table 5.2.1 • The mean scores for women (2.26) and men (2.24) showed lile difference in their consideraon of leaving the college due to feelings of isolaon or unwelcomeness. • Men were more likely to feel that their opinions were not valued than women and that the college emphasized diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) issues too much. Conversely, women felt they had to work harder to be acknowledged at the college, with a mean score of 3.13, compared to 2.82 for men. • LGBTQIA2S+ employees were more likely to consider leaving the college than their straight counterparts. Straight employees were more inclined to feel that their opinions were not valued, that the college placed too much emphasis on DEI issues, and that they had to exert more effort to be recognized.

• Across all demographic groups, BIPOC employees were the most negave.

• BIPOC employees were more likely to consider leaving the college due to feelings of isolaon or unwelcomeness than white employees. They were much more likely than white employees to feel they needed to work harder to be valued and that their opinions were undervalued.

• White employees were more likely to agree that the college places too much emphasis on DEI compared to employees of color.

• Academic staff were more likely to consider leaving the college due to feelings of isolaon or unwelcomeness, followed by faculty members. Support staff were the least likely to have such consideraons.

• Faculty were more likely to feel that their opinions were not valued and that the college emphasized DEI issues too much compared to both academic and support staff.

• While all three groups agreed to some extent that they had to work harder to be valued, faculty and academic staff reported this feeling more strongly than support staff.

• Employees with less than five years at the college generally had more posive experiences across all four items in this survey. In contrast, those with more than 20 years of service were the most likely to consider

leaving their posions and to feel that their opinions were undervalued. Employees with 10 to 19 years of service were parcularly likely to feel they had to work harder than others to be recognized.

Table 5.2 College DEI Aspects and Sense of Belonging (Negave Framed Items)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)

Thinking about your experiences in the college over the past 12 months, please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements. I have considered leaving the Broad College of Business because I felt isolated or unwelcomed. I feel others don’t value my opinions at the Broad College of Business. There is too much emphasis put on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion here at the Broad College of Business. I have to work harder than others to be valued equally at the Broad College of Business.

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Agree (4) 13.2%

Strongly Agree (5)

% Disagreement

Std.Dev

Mean

38.9%

24.6%

15.6%

7.8%

63.5%

167

2.26

1.31

22.0%

34.5%

20.8%

16.1%

6.5%

56.5%

168

2.51

1.19

22.8%

33.5%

26.9%

10.2%

6.6%

56.3%

167

2.44

1.14

10.7%

28.6%

24.4%

23.2%

13.1%

39.3%

168

2.99

1.22

Page i Page ii Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8-9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12-13 Page 14-15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20-21 Page 22-23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26-27 Page 28-29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32-33 Page 34-35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42-43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46-47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50-51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54-55 Page 56-57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87